Karthikeyan vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 1846 Mad

Madras High Court

Karthikeyan vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police on 15 April, 2026

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED : 15.04.2026

                                                             CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                                   Crl.O.P.No.9327 of 2026

                   1.Karthikeyan
                   2.Thirunavukkarasu                                           ... Petitioner(s)

                                                               Vs.

                   State rep. by the Inspector of Police,
                   Annathanapatti Police Station,
                   Salem District.                                              ... Respondent(s)
                   [Crime No.112 of 2026]

                   PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
                   to enlarge the petitioners on bail concerned in Crime No.112 of 2026 pending on
                   the file of the respondent police.



                                    For Petitioner(s)          : Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan

                                    For Respondent(s)          : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
                                                                 Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

                                                             ORDER

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

21.03.2026 for the alleged offence under Section 75(2) of BNS, 2023 and

Section 66E of IT Act and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.112 of 2026,

on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant approached

A1 for arranging a loan of Rs.40 lakhs by pledging her property; that A1 gave

only Rs.6,70,000/- to the defacto complainant and got a sale deed in his name in

respect of the property and when the defacto complainant demanded the

remaining amount, A1 along with the petitioners sent a video which was

recorded previously when A1 and the defacto complainant were together and

threatened the defacto complainant not to demand the remaining money. Hence,

the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even

according to the FIR, there is no allegation against these petitioners and the

entire allegation is against A1. The allegation against these petitioners is that

they had shown a compromising video of A1 and the defacto complainant to the

defacto complainant and intimidated her not to demand the property which has

already been handed over to A1. He would further submit that the petitioners

have been under incarceration since 21.03.2026.

4. The learned Government Advocate though strongly oppose the bail

application, would fairly submit that the overt act was only against A1. He

would also submit that major portion of investigation has been completed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the

learned counsel on either side.

6. Considering the totality of the circumstances and upon the fact that the

petitioners have been under incarceration since 21.03.2026 and upon the further

fact that the investigation has almost been completed, this Court is inclined to

enlarge the petitioners on bail with certain stringent conditions:

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their

executing separate bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five

Thousand only) each, with two sureties each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of

the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Salem, subject to the

following conditions:

[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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of 15 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis [d] the petitioners 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 take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

15.04.2026

ata

Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Salem.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.

3. The Inspector of Police, Annathanapatti Police Station, Salem District..

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

ata

15.04.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis