Mohan v. The State Represented By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.07.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Mohan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Koyambedu, Chennai - 107. (F.I.R. No.13 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.13 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner :

Mr.C.Kanagaraj For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 11(1), 12, 7 & 8 of POCSO Act, in Crime No.13 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

1/5

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had committed sexual harassment upon a minor victim girl aged about 17 years. Hence the case.

3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the alleged offence pertains to 18.06.2025, when the minor girl was employed in a textile shop along with other workers, and that she did not raise any grievance thereafter. He further submitted that the victim's mother, who was already under financial crisis, lodged the complaint with the intention of blackmailing the petitioner. He further submitted that the victim's mother had attempted suicide, and the alleged incident is nothing but a fabricated drama to extort money for their livelihood. He further submitted that the petitioner had produced his marriage invitation to establish that his marriage was solemnized on 18.06.2025 at Puducherry. He further submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence and hence he prayed for grant of bail.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for granting bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the CCTV footage reveals that no such incident has taken place.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 2/5

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and taking note of the nature of allegation and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 learned Special POCSO Court, High Court Campus, Chennai - 104 and on further conditions that:

[a] 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 of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [d] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses; [e] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation 3/5

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;

[f] 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];

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

30.07.2025 drl To

1. The Special POCSO Court, High Court Campus, Chennai - 104

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Koyambedu, Chennai - 107

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

drl 30.07.2025 5/5