Sekar v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
1. Sekar S/o. Mannu, No.1809, Vilankadu Village,Santhaval Post, Polur Taluk,Tiruvannamalai District.
2. Padma W/o. Sekar No.1809, Vilankadu Village,Santhaval Post, Polur Taluk,Tiruvannamalai District.
3. Sangeetha W/o. Murugan, No.11, West Mada Street,Mattavettu Village, Tiruvannamalai District.
4. Gnanavel S/o. Sekar, No.1809, Vilankadu Village,Santhaval Post, Polur Taluk,Tiruvannamalai District.
..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Santhavasal Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
Crime No.91/2026.
..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.91 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police station.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. E.Sathiyaraj For Respondent(s):
MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE )
ORDER
The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 11(4), 12 of POCSO Act and Section 331(4), 191(2), 296(b), 115(2) of BNS Act in Crime No.91 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 allegedly had acquaintance with the minor daughter of the defacto complainant, and when questioned, A2 to A5 allegedly abused and assaulted the husband of the defacto complainant. Based on the complaint, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2026 for the offences under the POCSO Act and BNS Act and arrested A1.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant's daughter were acquainted with each other, and due to such acquaintance, a false case has been registered against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that there are totally five accused in this case and the petitioners are A2 to A5. She further submitted that the petitioners 3 and 4 are parents and the petitioners 1 and 2 are the grand parents of the first petitioner and that, in connection with the acquaintance between A1 and the defacto complainant's daughter, a wordy quarrel had taken place. She also submitted that the injured had been discharged from the hospital. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
6. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the fact that the petitioners are arrayed as A2 to A5 and the overt allegations are mainly against A1, coupled with the fact that petitioners 2 and 3 are women, being the mother and grandmother of A1, and that the injured has already been discharged from the hospital, this Court is of the firm view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:
(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;
(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety slip (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;
(c) The first and fourth petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and the second and third petitioners, being ladies, shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;
(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on
anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];.
(e) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.
09-06-2026 DRL To 1.The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Inspector of Police Santhavasal Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
DRL 09-06-2026