Siva v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Siva ..Petitioner Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Tiruvannamalai West Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

Crime No.35 of 2026 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.35 of 2026 Pending investigation on the file of the respondent and thus render justice.

For Petitioner:

Mr.E.Sathiyaraj For Respondent:

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.02.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 87, 64(2)(m) of BNS (corresponding Section 366, 376 of IPC) and section 5(l), 6(l), 5(u) of POCSO

Act 2012 in Crime No.35 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had committed sexual assault upon the victim girl under the promise of marriage. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been 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 there is allegation of penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 17.02.2026. The petitioner is aged about 25 years and the victim girl is aged about 14 years. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side); and on perusal of the 183 statement recorded under BNSS, there is allegation of penetrative sexual assault against the petitioner. Considering the age of the petitioner and the allegation against him, this Court is of the firm view that it is not appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 08-06-2026 SHL To:

1. The Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The Inspector of Police Tiruvannamalai West Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 08-06-2026