Aasic v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police Awps -Marthandam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Aasic ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. (Crime No.11 of 2023) ...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Mohanasundaram

Advocate. For Respondent :Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest pending trial in Spl.S.C.No.51 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent pursuant to the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the the Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District in Spl.S.C.No.51 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and Sections 16, 17, 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on

28.04.2023, the petitioner took the victim girl to his house with a promise to marry her and compelled her to stay in the night hours. During the stay, the petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl on two occasions. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner was already released on bail and since the petitioner has not turned up for the hearing, Non-Bailable Warrant

(NBW) was ordered to be issued on 25.08.2025. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the petitioner underwent grate trauma and lost his mental balance and hence, he could not appear before the Trial Court. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly admits that already bail was granted to the petitioner and due to non-appearance, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the petitioner. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

¶6Considering the rival submissions made on either side and considering the fact that already bail was granted to the petitioner and due to absence, Non-Bailable Warrant was issued and the same is pending, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court, where the NBW is pending and file an appropriate application for cancellation of NBW.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court, where the NBW is pending and file an appropriate application for cancellation of NBW within a period of fifteen

(15) days from the date of receipt of this order and to file an application for cancellation of Non-Bailable Warrant. If such application is filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider the same on the same day in accordance with law, on merits.

¶8Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

(P D B J)

17.04.2026 vsg To

1.Thethe Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

CRLeOP(MD).eNo.e7529eofe2026 eeP.eDHANABAL,eJ., eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevsg eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeORDER eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeIN eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeCRLeOP(MD)eNo.e7529eofe2026 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeDateee:e17.04.2026