Gowsickraj v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

10.10.2025 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 318, 64(2)(h), 49, 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) of BNS and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.70 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that he is ranked as A3 in the present case. It is alleged that the defacto complainant was in a live-in relationship with A1 and, thereafter, separated from him. Taking advantage of the acquaintance with A1, the petitioner allegedly became close to the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that one of the co-accused, namely Dhilip Kumar, had a sexual relationship with the defacto complainant, as a result of which she became pregnant. When the defacto complainant informed others that the said Dhilip Kumar was the father of the child, he allegedly called the petitioner and other accused persons to his house, where they are stated to have attacked the defacto complainant and forcibly recorded her videograph, compelling her to state that Dhilip Kumar was not the father of the child. Hence, the present case has been registered.

¶3Earlier this Court dismissed the bail petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.31863 of 2025 dated 21.11.2025 on the ground that the petitioner had allegedly abused the victim both physically and sexually and that the petitioner, along with other accused, went to the house of the defacto complainant and attacked her, as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries. Since the petitioner was found to have actively participated in the commission of the offence, this Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the co-accused/A2 was released on statutory bail by the learned Lower Court, that the petitioner has no previous cases pending against him, and that he has been in judicial custody since 10.10.2025. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶5This Court has dismissed the bail petition filed by the petitioner, holding that the case involves not only physical harassment of a pregnant woman but also coercion to commit unnatural offences. Now, the petitioner has preferred the second bail petition without any change in circumstances. Considering the fact that there is no change in circumstances, I am not inclined to reconsider the earlier orders.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed

02.02.2026 drl To

¶1The Inspector of Police, AWPS Police Station, Omalur, Salem District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

K. RAJASEKAR, J. drl Crl.O.P.No.2257 of 2026

02.02.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.02.2026 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.2257 of 2026 Gowsickraj ... Petitioner -vs- State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, AWPS Police Station, Omalur, Salem District. (Crime No.70 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.70 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Franklin For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *********