Sachin v. The State Represented By, The Sub Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

1. Sachin S/o.Kannan, Residing at No.277, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Vepurchekkadi Village, Thiruvannamalai District.

2. Yogesh S/o.Kannan, Both are Residing at No.277, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Vepurchekkadi Village, Thiruvannamalai District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represented by, The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai All Women Police Station, Crime No.58 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This petition is filed under section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 on bail in SPL SC NO.58 OF 2026 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Thiruvannamalai District and to pass order or order that may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

M/s.S.Kasirajan For Respondent(s):

MR.S.YOGARAJA SEKAR, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.10.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 65(2) of BNSS 2023 and Section 5(1), 5(n), 5(m),9(m),6(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 in Crime No.58 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were residing near the residence of the victim girl and taking advantage of her loneliness committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on multiple occasions. Subsequently, the victim got infection and taken to the hospital, where she disclosed the repeated acts of sexual assault committed by the petitioners. Based on her statement, it was reported o the authorities, leading to the registration of the case against the petitioners for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault and that the petitioners were arrested. Hence, this case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the victim girl was examined as P.W-1 and she did not support the case of the prosecution. He further submitted due to some dispute a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 30.10.2025, they are ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl Side) submitted that victim girl is a minor and in the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS the victim girl has stated that the petitioner has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her on several occasions. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

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

6. Considering the facts of the case and nature of offence, even though the victim girl did not support the case of the prosecution, it cannot be construed as a ground for grant of bail. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 11-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order smn To.

1. The Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Thiruvannamalai District

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai All Women Police Station,

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

SMN 11-06-2026