Dhineshkumar @ Guru v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.06.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Dhineshkumar @ Guru ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kallakurichi Crime No.34 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.34 of 2025 on the file of respondent Police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondent :

Mr.V.Meganathan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 351(1) of BNS in Crime No.34 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner waylaid the victim 1/6

girl and pulled the victim girl's hand and forced her to get in this bike.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the injured has been discharged from the hospital.

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

6. It is seen from the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., that the petitioner and the victim girl were in love with each other for three years and thereafter, parents of the victim warned her not to have any communication with the petitioner and therefore, she had stopped talking with the petitioner and thereafter when the petitioner had followed her and forced her to continue the love relationship and also asked her to get into the bike, which 2/6

has now been projected as sexual assault. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either sides and taking note of the nature of the allegations and since, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kallakurichi on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one 3/6

of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;;

[f] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;

[g] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; 4/6

[h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 30.06.2025 sma To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kallakurichi.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kallakurichi

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

Sma 30.06.2025 6/6