Manikandan v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/02/2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Manikandan ... Petitioner/Accused

Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep By,The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Rural All Women Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.2 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabu

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,

Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :-For Bail in Spl.S.C.No.92 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Dindigul, in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.01.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 127(2), 351(3) BNS Act 2023 and 5(f), 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012. in Spl.S.C.No. 92 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Dindigul, in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2This is the second bail application before this Court. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the Tamil Teacher and he called the victim who is aged about 16 yeas and penetrative sexual assault on her several times and also threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court and he is in judicial custody from 24.01.2026. Hence, he seeks bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has also been filed. He further submitted that previously the petitioner was detained under Goondas Act and he had involved in a very henious offence. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶5Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the 164 statement recorded from the victim girl, it is revealed that the petitioner has committed a serious offence, and the investigation is at a preliminary stage. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this point of time, there is a likelihood of the petitioner indulging in activities which would be prejudicial for trial. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

(S S Y J)

25.02.2026 msrm To

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

¶2The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Rural All Women Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

S.SRIMATHY,J. msrm ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.18042 of 2025 Date : 25.02.2026