Balamurugan v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Awps-Palani

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03.03.2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE. K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN CRL.OP.(MD).No.4715 of 2026 Balamurugan

... Petitioner Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, AWPS – Palani, Dindigul District. (Crime No.45 of 2025)

... Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sudhanthiran For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER in all cases :- For Bail in Crime No. 45 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

22.01.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 11(5) r/w 12, 7 r/w 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act in Crime No.45 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had illegal relationship with the defacto complainant. When she asked him to marry her, she uploaded her 15 year old daughter's photo in instagram in awkward manner which has been circulated in the social media. Hence, the complaint

3.In the earlier bail application, this Court passed the following order: "3.The 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 in judicial custody from 22.01.2026. Hence, he seeks bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence against a minor victim girl. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. The earlier bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed by this Court.

5.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the seriousness of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶6Further on perusal of the FIR, it is seen that the victim girl's name is shown in the FIR. Hence, the prosecution is directed to remove the name of the victim girl from the FIR."

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner today submitted that prior to the occurrence the incriminating material namely the cellphone said to have recovered from the petitioner is missed and in respect of that his wife made a complaint before the jurisdiction police station.

5.With this change of circumstances, he filed the present bail petition. However, he also submitted that there was a no consistent relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl.

6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it is a heinous offence, where the victim girl's photographs were published in the media.

7.Considering the seriousness of the allegations i.e., uploading of 15 years old defacto complainant's offending photo in instagram and the same was not considered by this Court on earlier occasion. This Court finds no change of circumstances. The criminal original petition is liable to dismissed.

8.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

03.03.2026 TM To

¶1The District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Dindigul District.

¶2Do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigal District.

¶3The Superintendent, District Prison, Dindigul District.

4.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palani,Dindigul District.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4715 of 2026 Date : 03.03.2026