Praveen Vs The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

Praveen vs The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 11, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1470387

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1470387
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Decided On: Jun 11, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/14772/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Praveen

Respondent

The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....on 13.05.2026, seeking bail in crime no.08 of 2026 registered for the offence under sections75(2), 78(1)(ii), 79 of bns 67a of it act, seeks bail. page no.1 of 5 2.the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had relationship with the defacto complainant and took her to a lodge and misbehaved with her and also took her photographs and when the defacto complainant break her relationship, accused sent her obscene photographs and threatened her with dire consequences. hence, the case. 3.learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4.learned government counsel appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.5. heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned government counsel for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record. 6.considering the nature of allegations and also considering the period of incarceration, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. page no.2 of 5 7.accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned mahila court, egmore and on further conditions that:[a] 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 interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Praveen ... Petitioner/ Accused Vs. State by:- The Inspector of Police, AWPS Koyambedu Police Station, Chennai. (Crime No.08 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.08 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chandra Sekar For Respondent : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.05.2026, seeking bail in Crime No.08 of 2026 registered for the offence under Sections75(2), 78(1)(ii), 79 of BNS 67A of IT Act, seeks bail. Page No.1 of 5 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had relationship with the defacto complainant and took her to a lodge and misbehaved with her and also took her photographs and when the defacto complainant break her relationship, accused sent her obscene photographs and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the case. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4.Learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned Government Counsel for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record. 6.Considering the nature of allegations and also considering the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Page No.2 of 5 7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Mahila Court, Egmore and on further conditions that:

[a] 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 interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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]; [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 11.06.2026

Sma Page No.3 of 5 Copy to: 1.The Mahila Court, Egmore.. 2.The Inspector of Police, AWPS Koyambedu Police Station, Chennai.

3. The Superintendent, Puzhal Central Prizon -II

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page No.4 of 5

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

sma 11.06.2026 Page No.5 of 5

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Praveen vs The State Represented by the Inspector of Police Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan