Riyaz Sami Shariff @ Riyaz Sharif v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police
nIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.05.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Riyaz Sami Shariff @ Riyaz Sharif
...Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, AWPS Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai District.
Crime No.2 of 2026.
...Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.2 of 2026, pending on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Abdulkhadhar For Respondent : Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 12, 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w Section 87 of BNS, in Crime No.2 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
Page No.1 of 6
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner contacted victim child who is aged about 17 1⁄2 years through Instagram, coerced her by threats of self-harm, and compelled her to send obscene photographs, further intimidating her by threatening to circulate them among her relatives and friends. Furthermore, the petitioner repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim child and the petitioner even disseminated the nude photos of the victim child and kept her under constant threat. Hence, the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and that, he is in custody since 19.03.2026. He further submits that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed that the petitioner may be released on bail.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and submits that there is no pervious case pending against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim child is aged about 17 1⁄2 years. He further submits that the investigation has been Page No.2 of 6
completed and the final report has been e-filed before the Court concerned. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offences and taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and the victim, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and also considering the fact that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner and that the material part of the investigation has been completed, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 6.30 p.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during Page No.3 of 6
investigation or trial;
[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
14.05.2026 rap Note:
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
Page No.4 of 6
To:
1. The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai.
2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal - I, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police, AWPS Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai District.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.5 of 6
P.DHANABAL , J.
rap 14.05.2026 Page No.6 of 6