G.Deenadayalan v. The State of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09/07/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR G.Deenadayalan, S/o.Ganesan, No.360/67,18th Ward, Anna Nagar, Old Ayakudi, Palani Taluk, Dindigul.. ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Palani All Women Police Station, Dindigul, Cr.No.24 of 2026.. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manikandan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-58B.For Bail in Cr.No.24 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner /Sole Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.04.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 5(l), 5(i)(ii) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 296(b) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.24 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is the relative of the victim girl aged about 16 years and developed a relationship and subsequently committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault, which resulted in pregnancy. Hence, the case has been registered and the petitioner has been arrested.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a close relative of the defacto complainant and that there were discussions regarding their marriage. He would further submit that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim was a adolescent love affair and the relationship was consensual. He is in custody from 25.04.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

¶4The learned Counsel appearing for the State (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case by relying upon the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183(5) of BNS. Investigation in this case is concluded and awaiting filing of the final report. Hence, he prays to dismiss this application.

¶5This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on records including the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183(5) of BNS.

¶6In the statement of the victim girl, it is stated that the family of the petitioner and the victim were close relatives and that there were negotiations between the families for conducting the marriage, which could not be concluded due to the under age of the victim. Further, it is not stated that the petitioner had forcibly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. However, considering the other allegations made by the victim girl, the facts and circumstances of the case, and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial under POCSO Act Cases, Dindigul, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial under POCSO Act Cases, Dindigul at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required before the respondent Police for interrogation: [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/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 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 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(K R S J) vsg

09.07.2026 TO

1.The learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial under POCSO Act Cases, Dindigul.

¶2The Superintendent, Dindigul District Jail, Dindigul.

3.The Inspector of Police, Palani All Women Police Station, Dindigul,

¶4The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K. RAJASEKAR,J., vsg ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13814 of 2026 Date : 09/07/2026