Arunkumar v. State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Arunkumar S/o.Elumalai, No.281, Water Tank Street, Vasantham Nagar, Usampadi Village, Tiruvannamalai District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by:

The Inspector of Police, Thanipadi Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.

[Crime No.178/2025] ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with the Spl.SC.No.348 of 2025, on the file of the sessions judge, Special Court for Exclusive of Trial Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai. For Petitioner(s):

M/S. V.Santhosh For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Criminal side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.09.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 87, 127(3), 65(1), 64(2)(m) of B.N.S. and Section 3(a) read with 4(2), 5(l), 5(i) and 6(l) of POCSO Act in Cr. No.178 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, aged 32 years, has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim girl and hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has nothing to do with the commission of offences as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody on 03.09.2025 and hence prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police submitted the statement recorded under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. and objected the bail application stating that there are serious allegations against the petitioner.

5. The age of the petitioner is 32 years and the victim girl is aged 13 years. While perusing the statement of the victim girl under Section 183 of B.N.S.S, it is seen that there are serious allegations against this petitioner for forcible penetrative sexual assault. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there are

contradictions in the statement of the victim girl before the Court, it is premature state to go into such statement, while considering the bail application and if any findings rendered by this Court, it will prejudice the trial. Therefore, as stated supra, the petitioner is not entitled for bail,

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 10-06-2026 MJS 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.

To

1. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

2. The Inspector of Police, Thanipadi Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MJS 10-06-2026