Secured electronic evidence and prolonged custody justified bail despite allegations of intimate-video threats.

In brief

The question

Whether the appellant was entitled to bail pending investigation, having regard to the period of custody, recovery of the electronic devices, and the stage of investigation.

The court held

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Special Court’s refusal of bail, and enlarged the appellant on bail.

It also directed

Conditions included execution of a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, residence in Madurai, twice-daily reporting to Thallakulam Police Station, no entry into the village of occurrence without the Trial Court’s permission, and no direct or indirect contact with the complainant.

The police or complainant may apply to the Trial Court for cancellation of bail if any condition is violated.

01Facts

The appellant challenged the Special Court’s order refusing bail in Crime No. 49 of 2026.

He faced allegations under Sections 296(b), 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, arising from an alleged false promise of marriage, sexual relationship, and threat to publish intimate videos of the complainant, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste.

pp. 2–4

Arrested on 17 August 2026, the appellant had been in custody for about 58 days.

pp. 3–4

His cellphone and laptop had been recovered and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.

pp. 3–4

The complainant appeared before the High Court and opposed bail.

p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether the appellant was entitled to bail pending investigation, having regard to the period of custody, recovery of the electronic devices, and the stage of investigation.

pp. 4–5

ii.Whether bail should be subject to conditions addressing the risk of contact with the complainant and entry into the place of occurrence.

pp. 5–6

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

p. 1

The alleged offences were under Sections 296(b), 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

pp. 2–3

The Court did not set out a detailed bail test; it considered the appellant’s custody, the recovery and forensic examination of the devices, the progress of the investigation, and the maximum punishment for the alleged offences.

pp. 4–5

It referred to P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala in providing that the police or complainant could seek cancellation of bail for breach of conditions.

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 296 Section 69 Section 351

Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 67

04Reasoning

The Court found that the appellant had been in custody for about 58 days and that his cellphone and laptop had already been recovered and sent for forensic examination.

pp. 4–6

It therefore considered the risk of evidence tampering reduced and observed that the major portion of the investigation might have been completed.

pp. 4–6

Taking account also of the stated maximum punishment of five years, the Court concluded that bail was appropriate, while imposing conditions intended to prevent contact with the complainant and restrict the appellant’s movements.

pp. 4–6