Ranjith Kumar v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Ranjith Kumar ... Petitioner Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, K.V.R Nagar, All Women Police Station, Pattabiram, Tiruppur District.

(Crime No.15 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.15 of 2025 on the file of the respondent. For petitioner : Mr.P.Narayana Prasadh For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.03.2025, for the offences punishable under Section 96 of BNS and Section 3(a) r/w. 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 in connection with Crime No.15 of Page No.1 of 4

2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the information went to the Government Hospital, Tiruppur and recorded the statement of the victim girl aged about 8 years, in which, she had stated that while she was returning home from School the petitioner took her to his house, misbehaved with her and attempted to molest her. Hence, the case.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner and the victim's family are neighbours and there was a dispute between them regarding their work, hence the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and has nothing to do with the offence. He further submitted that the petitioner is in custody for more than 100 days. Hence, prayed for bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner, who is the neighbour to the victim's family, took her inside his house and committed penetrative sexual Page No.2 of 4

assault. He would further submit that the victim girl had categorically stated in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement about the act of the petitioner which was confirmed by the Doctor. Hence, strongly opposed for granting bail to the petitioner.

5.Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material, it is seen that the victim girl in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement had categorically stated about the petitioner taking her inside the house, removing her undergarments and committing the act of penetrative sexual assault, which is confirmed by the Doctor. In view of the serious nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 01.07.2025 cse Page No.3 of 4

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

cse To:

1.The Inspector of Police, K.V.R Nagar, All Women Police Station, Pattabiram, Tiruppur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras.

01.07.2025 Page No.4 of 4