K.G.Ramakrishna v. State Rep By Its,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI K.G.Ramakrishna ... Petitioner/A1 Vs State rep by its the Inspector of Police, D-5, Pallipattu Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

(Crime No.182 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.182 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For petitioner : Mr.M.Vimal B.Crimson For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 10 of Child Marriage Act, 1999 and Sections 5(1) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual 1/6

Offences Act, 2012 in Crime No.182 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is the maternal uncle of the de-facto complainant/victim, married the victim girl aged about 15 years against her consent. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He submitted that the de-facto complainant got acquainted with on Akhilan and later developed friendship with him. After came to know about the same, the de-facto complainant's mother initiated steps to perform marriage of the de-facto complainant with the petitioner and the marriage between them solemnized in the presence of the de-facto complainant's mother with the consent of de-facto complainant. After the marriage, the de-facto complainant went along with the said Akhilan and stayed for a while at Salem. The petitioner has nothing to do with the elopement of de-facto complainant/victim. Hence, prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/6

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is the maternal uncle of the victim girl and the victim girl is now secured. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that victim girl has bee now secured, 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 Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Thiruvallur District 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 3/6

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] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the 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)AIR SCW 5560].

4/6

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

11.09.2025 rsi To 1.The Inspector of Police, D-5, Pallipattu Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

2.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Thiruvallur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5/6

T.V.THAMILSELVI , J.

rsi 11.09.2025 6/6