Can a man remain in jail after the investigation is already complete in a case arising from photographs taken during a past relationship? The Madras High Court granted bail after more than 61 days of custody, imposing strict conditions to protect the complainant and the investigation.

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has granted bail to Murugan, who was accused of showing photographs of himself and his former girlfriend to her prospective groom and sending their couple pictures to both families, after which her proposed marriage was stopped.

Justice C. Kumarappan, while deciding Crl. O.P.No.8350 of 2026, allowed Murugan’s bail plea filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Police arrested him on February 1, 2026, in Crime No.03 of 2026 registered by the W-33, Virugambakkam All Women Police Station, Chennai, for alleged offences under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

According to the prosecution, Murugan and the complainant were earlier in a relationship. After a conflict, she stopped contacting him and later arranged to marry Ramesh Mehta on January 28, 2026. The prosecution alleged that Murugan, after learning about the proposed marriage, sent pictures of the couple to both families, following which the marriage was stopped, and the case was registered.

Murugan’s counsel submitted that he had already remained in custody for more than 61 days. It was argued that the photograph shown to the complainant’s prospective groom had been taken with her consent and that much of the matter arose from a consensual relationship. The defence submitted that his release on bail would not prejudice the prosecution case.

The Government Advocate also informed the Court that the investigation was complete.

Considering the overall circumstances and Murugan’s period of custody since February 1, 2026, the High Court observed that, at this stage, there was unlikely to be any disturbance to the complainant from him. The Court therefore granted bail subject to strict conditions.

Murugan was directed to execute a bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties for the same amount before the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. The Court also directed him to stay in Trichy and report to Palakkarai Police Station daily at 10:30 a.m. for two weeks, and thereafter whenever required for interrogation.

The Court further directed that Murugan must not abscond or tamper with evidence or witnesses during the investigation or trial. In case of breach of the bail conditions, the Trial Court can take appropriate action in accordance with law. The order also stated that if he subsequently absconds, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the BNS.

While imposing these conditions, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283]. The order only decides Murugan’s request for bail and does not determine whether the allegations against him are ultimately proved or not.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. A broken relationship became a criminal case, and the man lost more than 61 days of liberty before bail came.
2. The defence said the photograph itself was taken with the woman’s consent—yet the man still remained behind bars while the case moved forward.
3. By the time bail was considered, even the Government Advocate confirmed that the investigation was complete. The man had already spent over two months in custody.
4. The High Court finally considered the length of incarceration and overall circumstances and released him on bail with strict conditions.
5. This is the problem men keep facing: accusation first, liberty lost immediately, trial later. Bail is not acquittal—but pre-trial jail should never quietly become punishment before guilt is proved.