Vijayakumar v. The State Rep.By, the Inspector of Police,

ORDER This is the sixth bail application filed before this Court by the petitioner.

¶2The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on Page2 of 4

18.05.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 87 and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 5(1), 5(j)(ii) and 6(1) of Protection of Children from Sexual offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, in Crime No.22 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶3The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the victim belong to the same village. It is alleged that the petitioner administered a sedative to the victim and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Consequently, the 17-year-old victim became pregnant, leading her mother to lodge a formal complaint. Hence, the case.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent, has not committed any offence, and has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on

18.05.2025 and has been incarcerated for more than seven months and hence prayed for grant of bail.

¶5The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that the petitioner, being a married man, was well aware of his position and yet sexually assaulted a minor, resulting in her pregnancy. It was further submitted that the DNA test result is positive and that, if enlarged on bail, there is every possibility Page3 of 4 of the petitioner tampering with witnesses.

¶6I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶7Considering the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the trial is still pending, and having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. However, this Court directs the Trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶8Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. 01-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni To

1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive of Trial Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai.

2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (AWPS), Vandhavasi, Tiruvannamalai District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o8167oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. Jeni CRLoOPoNo.o8167oofo2026 01-04-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Vijayakumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (AWPS), Vandhavasi, Tiruvannamalai District. Crime No.22 of 2025. ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Connection with the Spl.SC.No.187 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive of Trial Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Mubeen For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)