Amalraj v. The State of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 30.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 15025 of 2026 Amalraj

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirupparankundram, Madurai District. (Crime No.17 of 2025)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Neethimohan

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. 17 of 2025 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 17.11.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 87 of BNS, Section 3(a) r/w. 4(2) of POCSO Act, Section 5(m) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act and Section 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.17 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is neighbour of defacto complainant and was running a shop and when the victim was seen near his shop, he took her into her shop and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault, which resulted in causing severe injuries. Based on the information given by the victim the complaint has been lodged by her mother. Hence, the case has been registered and the petitioner was 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. He would further submit that the petitioner is only aged about 19 years. It is not the case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault as alleged by the prosecution. He is in judicial custody from 17.11.2025, nearly about 9 months and ready to co-operate with the trial process. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioners.

¶4The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioner has no previous case. He further produced the copy of the statement recorded under Section 183(5) of BNSS. Investigation in this case has been completed and the final report was also filed before the concerned Court. The copies were also furnished to the accused and now the case is pending for charges framing. Hence, he opposed to grant of bail to the petitioner.

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

¶6Considering the nature of the allegations, that the petitioner is in custody for long period, the age of the petitioner and also considering the other circumstances in this case, 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 Session Judge Principal, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Madurai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Session Judge Principal, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, 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)

30.07.2026 TM To

1.The Session Judge Principal, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirupparankundram, Madurai District. (Crime No.17 of 2025)

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.

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

K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 15025 of 2026 Date : 30.07.2026