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

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 127(2), 64(2)(a)(i), 64(2)(a)(ii), 64(2)(a)(iii), 62, 75, 76, 351 and 49 of BNS, 2023, read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman (Amendment) Act, 2002, in Crime No.11 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 4

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 19.10.2025, the first accused

(A1), Commandant Mr. Senthilkumar, allegedly made inappropriate advances toward the de facto complainant and subjected her to unwanted physical contact. Later that night, the second accused (A2), SI Pushpa Kumari, allegedly summoned the de facto complainant back on the pretext that the first accused wished to speak with her. During a purported guard check, the first accused allegedly isolated the de facto complainant by directing the second accused to leave. Thereafter, he allegedly overpowered the de facto complainant, dragged her into the Law Classroom against her will, and subjected her to severe physical and sexual assault, while the second accused allegedly ignored the de facto complainant's distress signals and abandoned her at the scene.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are utter falsehoods, that the petitioner is an innocent and law-abiding citizen, and that she has not committed any offence as alleged by the respondent. He further submitted that A1 in this case has already been granted bail. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has committed a very serious and heinous offence against the victim along with A1. He stated that if the petitioner is granted Page3 of 4 anticipatory bail, there is a possibility that she will tamper with witnesses and hamper the investigation.

¶5Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations, the serious and heinous offence allegedly committed by the petitioner along with A1, and the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 11-06-2026 GBI To

¶1The Inspector of Police, AWPS South Police Station, Coimbatore.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o12241oofo2026 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,oJ. GBI CRLoOPoNo.o12241oofo2026 11-06-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Pushpakumari ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, AWPS South Police Station, Coimbatore. Crime No.11 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in respect of Crime No.11 of 2026, on the file of the Inspector of Police, AWPS South Police Station, Coimbatore City, pending investigation. For Petitioner(s): M/S. Parthasarathy M For Respondent(s): MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)