Dhurvasalu v. State Rep.By

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

01.11.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 332(b), 115(2), 63(d) (iv), 64(2)(m), 64(2)(f), 351(2) of BNS, u/s. 5(1), 5(n), 5(i), 5(u), r/w 6(1) of POCSO Act and 66E of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, in Crime No.54 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner/Accused trespassed into the house of the victim girl, Pallavi, while she was alone and sexually assaulted her. It is further alleged that the Petitioner took photographs of the victim using his mobile phone and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone, warning that if she failed to adhere to his demands, he would circulate the photographs on social media. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that it is a case of forcibly entering into the house and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl and the final report was also filed and the same is pending in Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2026. It is further submitted that Section 164 of Cr.P.C statement of the victim has been recorded. Page3 of 4

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6On perusal of the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the minor victim girl revealed that the petitioner assaulted her and committed penetrative sexual assault. Thus, the petitioner has committed a offence against a minor. Further, the petitioner is aged about 36 years and is a married man. In view of the serious nature of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 17-07-2026 NSL To

¶1The Inspector of Police, Panamadangi Police Station, Vellore District.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o18760oofo2026 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o18760oofo2026 17-07-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Dhurvasalu ..Petitioner Vs State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Panamadangi Police Station, Vellore District. (Crime No.54/2025) ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2026 on the file of the Special Judge for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act-2012, Vellore. For Petitioner: Mr.N.K.Ponraj For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)