Mathavakannan vs State

K. Rajasekar, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.12.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 77 of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998, in Crime No.485 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein was the relative of the defacto complainant and while staying in the house of the defacto complainant, this petitioner clandestinely recorded the private video of the victim lady in this case. Hence, a complaint has been lodged and the petitioner was arrested.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the mobile phone used by the petitioner was seized and that the petitioner is not having previous bad antecedents and he is in judicial custody since 23.12.2025 and that he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police reiterated the prosecution's case and, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioner is not having previous bad antecedents and further the mobile phone used by the petitioner has been seized and the same has been sent to the forensic lab for examination and the report is yet to be received. He further submitted that the investigation in this case is still pending. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

I have considered the submissions made on both sides and also perused the records available.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side); and the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, and also the fact that no previous bad antecedents have been registered against him and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner 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, Madukkarai, 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 learned respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for the period of three weeks 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.