Venkatesan v. The State Represented by the Inspector of Police,

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

09.04.2026 for the alleged offences under Non-Act Girl Missing @ under Section 5 (1), 6 (1) of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 64 (2) (m), 87 of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 and Section 9 of Child Marriage Act, 2006, in Crime No.91 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is approximately thirty-four years old and the victim is approximately sixteen years old. It is alleged that the petitioner forcibly took the victim and tied a thali around her neck. It is further alleged that despite her objections, the petitioner had a physical relationship with her. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been in custody since 09.04.2026. He further submitted that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed before Principal District Judge, Ranipet in Spl.S.C.No.83 of 2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and produced the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, which contains serious allegations of sexual assault. He further stated that the petitioner is a married person and contended that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of his tampering with the witnesses. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. Page3 of 4

5.A perusal of the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, reveals that the petitioner took the victim to a temple and married her. It further reveals that despite her objections, he had a physical relationship with the victim. In view of these serious allegations and the fact that the victim is yet to be examined before the trial Court, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), enlarging the petitioner would create a fear psychosis in the mind of the minor victim. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that it is not desirable to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Consequently, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 14-07-2026 ep Page4 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. EP To

1.The Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Stati9on, Ranipet District.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. 14-07-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Venkatesan ..Petitioner(s) Vs The state Represented by The Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station. Ranipet District. Crime No.91 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the Crime No.91 of 2026 on the file of Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.B Mohan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side )