Suresh v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Illuppu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 30.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 12813 of 2026 Suresh

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Illuppur All Women Police Station, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District. (Crime No.8 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sarathkumar

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. 8 of 2026 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 01.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 5(i)(ii) r/w. 6(1) of POCSO Amendment Act, in Crime No.8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a neighbour to the defacto complainant, who developed relationship with the victim girl, who aged about 16 years and by making various promises, he had sexual relationship with her, subsequently, avoided her. Further she became pregnant. Thereafter, the present complaint has been lodged and the petitioner was arrested.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police has registered a false case against the petitioner and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim girl. This is a consensual relationship. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.06.2026. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the date of birth of the victim is only 26.04.2010. It is a clear case of taking advantage of the victim girl's age, he had committed aggravating penetrative sexual assault upon the victim, which resulted in to the pregnancy of the victim girl. He opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

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

6.Considering the nature of offences, that at the time of occurrence the victim is only aged about 16 years, investigation is still pending and that it is clear case of offence falling under POCSO Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.

(K R S J)

30.06.2026 TM To

1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Illuppur All Women Police Station, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District. (Crime No.8 of 2026)

3.The Superintendent, District Jail, Pudukkottai District.

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

K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12813 of 2026 Date : 30.06.2026