Gowrishankar vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.05.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 77, 78, 79, 336(2), 351(3) of BNS [corresponding Sections 354(C), 54(D), 509, 465, 506(ii) of IPC] and Section 67A and 66E of Information Technology Act] in Crime No.22 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the victim are colleagues working at the same place. Due to a misunderstanding, the petitioner had created forged IDs in the name of the victim and posted her morphed photographs on social media portraying her as a call girl. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are colleagues and were in a consensual relationship, which came to the knowledge of the de facto complainant's husband. Thereafter, the de facto complainant and her husband came to the petitioner's residence and took the petitioner's mobile phone. Pursuant to a wordy quarrel, a compromise was reached at the police station. However, in order to wreak vengeance, they again lodged a complaint on 06.05.2026, pursuant to which the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. Hence, she prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner had created a fake ID in the name of the de facto complainant and uploaded morphed images of the de facto complainant, besides stalking her.

Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, though there are allegations against the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner has been in incarceration since 06.05.2026 and that a major portion of the investigation might have been completed by this time. Accordingly, this Court is of the firm view that further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pallavaram, and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. for a period of 30 days, and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.