Babu v. The State By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.07.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Babu ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, AWPS - Thiruvannamalai Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.6 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner :

Mr.A.Saravanan For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.02.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366(A), 328, 376(2)(n), 376(D), 354(C) of IPC, Sections 5(g), 5(i), 5(l) r/w 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sections 8(c), 27(A) of NDPS Act, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the petitioner/A1 and the victim were in a relationship, A1 introduced the victim to drugs and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Further, the petitioner made the victim a drug addict and thereafter, using her as a toy, his friends also sexually assaulted her. Hence the case.

3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner/A1 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner and the victim were in a consensual relationship and due to a change in the victim's behaviour, the petitioner voluntarily distanced himself from her. However, with a false motive, the victim had lodged a false complaint against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by ant stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court, hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and strongly opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the present case pertains to an offence of gang rape, wherein, the petitioner/A1, under the guise of a love affair, had a relationship with the victim girl, introduced her to drugs and along with his friends, sexually assaulted and ravished her life. He also submitted that there are 2/4

10 accused in this case and except Accused Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9, all other accused have been secured. The respondent Police have initiated steps to cancel the bail granted to them. Further, a Look Out Circular has been issued against A8, who is presently abroad. He further submitted that the investigation in this case has almost been completed and the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and taking note of the serious nature of allegation leveled against the accused, who had devastated the life of a girl, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 08.07.2025 ham To

1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The Inspector of Police, AWPS - Thiruvannamalai Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 3/4

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

ham 08.07.2025 4/4