Mohammed Noordeen v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

12.04.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 10, 9(m) of POCSO Act, in Crime No.10 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed the offence of sexual assault on the victim girl, aged about 7 years. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence took place on 12.04.2026 and that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on the same day. He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and produced the statement recorded under 183 of BNSS before this Court dated

28.04.2026. Relying upon the said statement, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the Page3 of 6 submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side); though this is a case of sexual assault, the petitioner was remanded in judicial custody since

12.04.2026. From the perusal of the statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, it is seen that the allegations are that the petitioner held the hands of the victim, pinched her cheeks and patted the back of the victim's sister. Except for these allegations, there are no serious allegations against the petitioner. Considering the period of long incarceration, this Court is of the firm view that the further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chengalpet District, and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 15 days and Page4 of 6 thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283]; [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 13-07-2026 DRL Note:

¶1Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶2All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. Page5 of 6 To

1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chengalpet District.

¶2The Inspector of Police AWPS, Madipakkam, Chengalpet.

3.The Superintendent, Chengalpet District Jail, Chengalpet.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o17840oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. DRL CRLoOPoNo.o17840oofo2026 13-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Mohammed Noordeen S/o Mohammed Ali, No.2401, Judge Radhakrishnan Salai, Bhavani Nagar, Velacherry, Chennai. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Madipakkam, Chengalpet. Crime No.10 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under section 483 of BNSS, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.10 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, AWPS Madipakkam, Chengalpet. For Petitioner(s): Mr. T.Vijayan For Respondent(s): MR.S.YOGARAJA SEKAR, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE )