Muthuvel v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Awps-Thoothukudi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.15462 of 2026

1.Muthuvel

2.Amutha ... Petitioners / A2 and A3

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. (Crime No.66 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.66 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, or on their appearance. For Petitioners : Mr.Senthil Sankara Natha Kumar

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.66 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 5(1) r/w 6, 16 r/w 17 of the POCSO Act, seek the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are the parents of A1. It is alleged that, knowing fully well that the victim girl was only 13 years of age, the petitioners, in connivance with the parents of the victim, arranged the marriage between A1 and the victim. Thereafter, A1 allegedly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. Based on information received from the Childline authorities, the victim girl was rescued, and the present case came to be registered. A1 has since been arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, being the parents of A1, had arranged the marriage only due to the insistence and compulsion of the parents of the victim girl. He further submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4Per contra, the learned Counsel for State (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the FIR was registered only recently, i.e., on 17.07.2026. He further submitted that the statement of the victim clearly reveals that she was only 13 years of age at the time of the occurrence and that the petitioners, in connivance with the parents of the victim, arranged the child marriage, which ultimately resulted in the commission of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim, attracting the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶5This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the age of the victim, namely 13 years, the specific allegations against the petitioners that they facilitated the child marriage, and the gravity of the offences alleged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, this Court is not inclined to grant the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

27.07.2026 pal To

1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD).oNo.15462oofo2026 oK.oRAJASEKARoo,Jo. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopal ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.15462oofo2026 Dateoo:o27.07.2026