Sarguna Sundar v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Mathur

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 14306 of 2026 Sarguna Sundar

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station, Pudukokttai District. (Crime No.110 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ananda Kumar

Advocate

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 110 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Section 137(2) of BNS, Sections 7 r/s. 8 of the POCSO Act @ Section 137(2) of BNS and Section 5(1) r/w 6(1) of the POCSO Act, in Crime No.110 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein is aged about 19 years. Both the victim and the petitioner are hailing from the same Village. Due to that acclamation, in the month of February 2026, the petitioner kidnaped the victim and subsequently, she was rescued and joined with their family. In the month of April 2026, once again the petitioner kidnaped her and taken her to various places and also committed aggrevated penetrative sexual assault. In the mean time, the family members lodged a complaint as girl missing. Subsequently the victim was secured and produced before the CWC and case was registered and petitioned is arrested. Thereafter, the offence was altered.

¶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. He would further submit that the petitioner is aged about 19 years. Both are known to each other and the victim herself voluntarily accompanied the petitioner and there is no allegation of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. He is in custody from 06.06.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

¶4The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that original girl missing complaint was lodged. Subsequently, it was altered after securing the victim. She also stated that she was kidnaped and subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by the petitioner. Investigation in this case is still pending. He opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶5This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offences, I have gone through the FIR and the statement given by the victim girl under Section 183(5) of BNS, it is a case of adolescent love, the petitioner is aged about 19 years, the victim is aged about more than 17 years, due to the dispute between the family members, it is stated that the victim was kidnaped, now she was secured and considering the age of the petitioner herein, and also considering the period of incarceration, I am 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.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall stay at Madurai and report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, until further orders; [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)

15.07.2026 TM To

1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

3.The Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station, Pudukokttai District. (Crime No.110 of 2026)

4.The Superintendent, Borstal School, Pudukkottai.

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

K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 14306 of 2026 Date : 15.07.2026