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

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

18.11.2025 for the alleged offence under 64(2)(m) of BNS 2023 (376(2) IPC) and 5(m) r/w 6(1) of POCSO Act 2012 and which was altered as section 75(1)

(i) r/w 75(2) of BNS 2023 and 354(A) IPC and section 9(1), (n) r/w 10 of Page2 of 4 POCSO Act 2012 and Section 75 of JJ Act in Crime No.39 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has molested the minor victim girl. Hence, this case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been incarcerated since 18.11.2025 and submitted that charge sheet has been filed and trial has already begun in S.C.No.60 of 2026 and posted today for trial. He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and strongly opposed the bail application on the ground of nature of relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl. He also produced the statement recorded from the victim by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai dated 27.11.2025, in which the victim girl had clearly stated about the sexual act of the petitioner. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner. Page3 of 4

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6From the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, though the petitioner has been incarcerated since 18.11.2025, as rightly pointed out by the learned Govt Advocate (Crl.Side), considering the relationship of the petitioner with the accused and step father, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, then it will create mental trauma on the victim girl and apart from that it will also jeopardise the trial proceedings. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 25-03-2026 SHL To:

¶1The Special Court, Tiruvannamalai.

¶2The Inspector of Police AWPS Police Station, Arani Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras CRLoOPoNo.o7546oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPANoJ. SHL CRLoOPoNo.o7546oofo2026 25-03-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Jayasankar ..Petitioner Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police AWPS Police Station, Arani Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.39 of 2025) ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 483 of BNSS Act to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on Bail pertaining to Crime No.39 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Woman Police Station, Arani, Tiruvanamalai District. For Petitioner: Mr.Pari Gopal For Respondent: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Govt.Advocate (Crl Side)