Arunkumar v. State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Arunkumar S/o.Elumalai, No.281, Water Tank Street, Vasantham Nagar, Usampadi Village, Tiruvannamalai District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thanipadi Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.

Crime No.178 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with the Spl.S.C.No.348 of 2025, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive of Trial Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.V.Santhosh For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.09.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections Girl Missing @ 87, 127(3),

65(1), 64(2)(m) of BNS Act and Sections 3(a) r/w 4(2), 5(l), 5(i) and 6(1) of POCSO Act, 2012, in Crime No.178 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

`

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is already a married man, closely associated himself with the victim girl, abducted her to a separate house and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. It is further alleged that he continuously harassed and assaulted the victim. Based on the said occurrence, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not abducted the victim girl; rather, she voluntarily accompanied him. It was further contended that both of them lived together for some time as husband and wife. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent police strongly objected to the grant of bail and submitted that the petitioner has already married two wives and, in spite of such fact, he has committed an offence against a 13-year-old victim. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

7. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), this Court is of the view that there is every possibility that the petitioner would tamper with the witnesses if he is enlarged on bail. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 03-03-2026 cda To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thanipadi Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

cda 03-03-2026