Balu v. State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Balu ... Petitioner Vs.

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station.

Crime No.100 of 2026 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in the above Cr.No.100 of 2026 on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Ponni For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section POCSO Act, in Crime No.100 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

1/4

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that due to money dispute, petitioner had sexually assaulted the defacto complainant and her daughter. . Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner as against the defacto complainant and her minor daughter and upon the fact that the investigation is still pending, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. 2/4

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 22.04.2026 sma To

1. The Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

sma 22.04.2026 4/4