Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25035 (MAD)

Mathur Sathya v. The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police

CRL OP/12135/2026 · 2026-05-13

P Dhanabal

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRL O.P. No.12135 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 13.05.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.P.DHANABAL CRL OP.No.12135 of 2026 Mathur Sathya S/o.Jacob Raj ..Petitioner Vs The State represented by: The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Branch, Chennai. [Cr. No.29 of 2026] .... Respondent PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., praying to grant bail to the petitioner in Cr.No.29 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Karthik For Respondent: Mr.R.Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested on 18.03.2026 and remanded to judicial custody on the same day for the offences punishable under Sections 77, 79 of BNS r/w 66E, 67A of Information Technology Act @ under Sections 75, 77 of BNS r/w under Section 66E, 67A of Information Technology Act in Cr.No.29 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.12135 of 2026 seeks bail. 2 The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the victim had love affair and the petitioner threatened the victim by stating that he would share the intimate videos in the social media. Hence the case. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner and the victim had love affair and with consent of the victim they were in relationship and the petitioner has not committed any offene as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is in judicial custody from18.03.2026. Hence he prayed that the petitioner may be released on bail. 4 The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioner and the victim had love affair and the petitioner threatened the victim by stating that he would share the intimate videos in the social media. Further he would submit that the mobile phone has been recovered and sent for Forensic Lab. 5 Learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioner had taken intimate videos from other persons also and the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.12135 of 2026 offence committed by the petitioner is grave in nature and hence opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. 6 Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7 Considering the rival submissions on either side, nature of offences and the fact that the mobile phone has been recovered and sent to Forensic Lab, material part of investigation is completed and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute 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 XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected; 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.12135 of 2026 [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC. 13.05.2026 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order cgi 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.12135 of 2026 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. To 1. The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Branch, Chennai. 2. XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai 3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. Copy to: The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.12135 of 2026 P.DHANABAL ,J cgi CRL OP.No.12135 of 2026 13.05.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis