Gnanaselvan vs The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.07.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 296(b), 78(1)(i), 78(2), 79, 351(3) of BNS and Sec.4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.287 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant is having two female children. From the year 2024, the petitioner regularly followed the both the children from their house to school and after knowing the same, the de facto complainant warned the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner stopped to follow the children. After some days, again the petitioner started to follow the children and during that time, the petitioner used obscene words and acted in an abusive manner and thereby committed the offence. When the de facto complainant questioned the petitioner about the same, he threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences. Hence this case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner has been incarcerated since 22.07.2026. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side); considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of allegation against this petitioner and considering the period of incarceration of 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 Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, 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 file an affidavit before the jurisdictional Magistrate undertaking that he will not, in any way, indulge in similar activities in future; and

[c] if any such complaint is received, the bail granted shall automatically stand cancelled;

[d] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

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

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

[g] 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];

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