Subramaniam v. The State Rep.By

ORDER The Petitioner/Accused, who was arrested on 31.10.2025 and remanded to judicial custody on the same day for the offences punishable under Sections Page2 of 7 5(1), 5(n) and 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 351(2) of B.N.S. in Cr. No.69 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 31.10.2025 the victim lodged a complaint, stating that she was aged about 17 years and that on 26.08.2025 at about 2:30 p.m., when her uncle and aunt had gone to the hospital, her paternal uncle came to the house and gave her wine. She further stated that he repeated the same act on 04.09.2025. Thereafter, on 28.10.2025, while undergoing a medical examination, she was found to be pregnant. The hospital management contacted the Child Helpline, and the officials enquired with the victim. She stated that she had a love affair with one Karthic and that they had a physical relationship, due to which she became pregnant. However, since her grandmother, aunt, and Vijayalakshmi from the Child Helpline felt that the victim's statement was contradictory, they asked her to tell the truth. Thereafter, she revealed that the statement regarding Karthic was false and that all these acts had been committed by her paternal uncle. Hence this case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioner under Page3 of 7 Sections 5(1), 5(n), and 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 351(2) of the B.N.S. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for more than 159 days. The respondent police have completed the investigation against the accused, filed the charge sheet, and the same has been taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.296/2025. The petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the complainant. The respondent police have foisted a false case against the petitioner based on twisted facts concocted by the de facto complainant.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioner had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault and, considering the gravity of the offence, opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6.Considering the rival submissions and the nature of the offence and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and the fact that already investigation has been completed and the case is now posted before the trial Court after committal and also considering the fact that petitioner has no previous case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the Page4 of 7 following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur on all working days at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which she is suspected; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the Page5 of 7 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC. 13-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SSR Note:

¶1Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶2All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. Page6 of 7 To

1.The Sessions Judge Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur.

2.The Inspector of Police, KVR Nagar, All Women Police Station, Tiruppur District. Cr.No.69 of 2025.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. CRLoOPoNo.o12263oofo2026 P.DHANABAL,oJ. SSR CRLoOPoNo.o12263oofo2026 13-05-2026 Page7oofo7

Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-05-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Subramaniam ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, KVR Nagar, All Women Police Station, Tiruppur District. (Cr.No.69 of 2025) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Spl.SC.No.296 of 2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur. For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Franklin For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)