Rajkumar v. The State Rep by

ORDER The Petitioner/Accused, who was arrested on 18.04.2026 and remanded to judicial custody on the same day for the offences punishable under Sections 9(f), 9(1), 9(m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act in Cr. No.15 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that a complaint dated 10.04.2026 was received from the Child Welfare Officer alleging that six school teachers were Page2 of 6 misbehaving with students. Accordingly, on 16.04.2026, an enquiry was conducted by the Headmaster of St. Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Athipet, with the students, and it came to light that the petitioner herein was working as a temporary P.T. teacher in the said school and used to inappropriately touch girl students. Hence, the Headmaster lodged a complaint dated 17.04.2026 before the respondent police, and they registered an FIR in Crime No.15 of 2026 for the offences under Sections 9(f), 9(l), and 9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. On 18.04.2026, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Hence this case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is working as a temporary P.T. teacher at St. Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Athipet, which is a Christian minority school. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to the S.T. community and that, from the date of his appointment, other teachers belonging to the Christian community have been opposing his appointment. It is further submitted that he has been facing disturbances from other teachers. Therefore, it is contended that a false complaint has been lodged by the de facto complainant/school management.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the FIR was registered on 18.04.2026 and that the statement under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. is yet to be recorded. Hence, he strongly opposes the grant of Page3 of 6 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 though the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has submitted that the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. has not been recorded so far, considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the 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 Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at

10.30 a.m. for a period of thirty (30) days. [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 he is suspected; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, Page4 of 6 threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him 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 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. Page5 of 6 To

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

2.The Inspector of Police Polur-All Women Police Station (AWPS), Tiruvannamalai District

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore. CRLoOPoNo.o12405oofo2026 P.DHANABAL,oJ. SSR CRLoOPoNo.o12405oofo2026 13-05-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-05-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Rajkumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police Polur- All Women Police Station (AWPS), Tiruvannamalai District (Crime No.15 of 2026) ..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 Crime No.15 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent and thus render Justice For Petitioner(s): Mr.Sathiyaraj E. For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)