Suriyaprakash v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Suriyaprakash ..Petitioner Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, Chennimalai Police Station, Erode District.

Crime No.392 of 2025 ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 483 of BNSS Act to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with the Crime No.392 of 2025 pending on the file of respondent police.

For Petitioner:

Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.12.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 127(2), 351(2) of BNS and under section 3,4,7,8 of POCSO Act in Crime No.392 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has committed sexual assault on the daughter of the de facto complainant. Hence, this case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been incarcerated since 07.12.2025 and he 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.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is the step father of the victim girl, who is aged about 16 years. He also produced the statement recorded from the victim girl by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Erode dated 09.12.2025 where she has stated about the forcible physical assault made by the petitioner. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

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

6. From the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and considering the gravity of allegation against the petitioner and upon the fact that there is no change in circumstances from the earlier bail application in Crl.OP.No.3177 of 2026 dated 10.02.2026. Hence, this Court is of a firm view that it is not appropriate to enlarge this petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 25-03-2026 SHL To:

1. The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode.

2. The Inspector of Police, Chennimalai Police Station, Erode District.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 25-03-2026