Gurusamy @ Kannan v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Awps - Periyakulam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 21.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.13210 of 2026 Gurusamy @ Kannan ... Petitioner / Sole Accused

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District. (Crime No.28 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.28 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on his appearance. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Senthilkumar

For Respondent : Mr.J.Vishnu Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.28 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 75(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seeks the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner allegedly threatened the defacto complainant by claiming that he was in possession of certain intimate photographs and videos of her. On the strength of such threats, the petitioner is alleged to have collected a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner subsequently demanded sexual favours from her. Unable to bear the alleged harassment, the defacto complainant lodged the present complaint, based on which the case has been registered against the petitioner.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complaint has been lodged only on account of a monetary dispute and that the allegations made against the petitioner are false. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the mobile phone used in the commission of the alleged offence has already been recovered. He further submitted that the investigation in the present case is still in progress and, therefore, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶5This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the mobile phone has already been recovered and also considering the fact that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Watrap, Virudhunagar District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

(a) the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation;

(c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and

(f) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.

21.07.2026 pal To

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Watrap, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD).oNo.14661ooofo2026 oK.oRAJASEKARoo,Jo. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopal ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.13210oofo2026 Dateoo:o21.07.2026