Elayaperumal v. State Rep By , The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.29550 of 2025 Elayaperumal ... Petitioner Vs.
State of Tamilnadu Inspector of Police, AWPS-Dharmapuri Police Station, Dharmapuri District.
... Respondent (Cr.No.38 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending on the file of the respondent in Cr.No.38 of 2025. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Thirumoorthy For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.07.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 5(1), 6, 11(5), 12 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act and Section 9, 10 and 11 of 1/5
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act in Crime No.38 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is ranked as A1, developed a relationship with the victim girl while she was studying in XI Standard. He seduced her to marry him and, under the pretext of marriage, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. Subsequently, he recorded nude photographs of the victim and began to harass her. It is further alleged that the petitioner had taken drugs and, despite best efforts to stop him from indulging in unnatural offences, he continued his acts, which ultimately led to the registration of the present FIR. Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aged about 25 years and that the family members of both sides have decided to solemnize the marriage between the petitioner and the victim girl. However, due to a subsequent matrimonial dispute, a false complaint has been lodged. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 09.07.2025 and is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed that bail may be granted to the petitioner.
2/5
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the statement of the victim girl disclosed several disturbing facts, revealing that the petitioner had continuously harassed her and was also involved in committing unnatural offences. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. On perusal of the statement of the victim girl, it is revealed that the petitioner had not only sexually harassed her but had also subjected her to various forms of physical harassment. Further, he had criminally intimidated her with dire consequences. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, if bail is granted to the petitioner, there is a likelihood of the petitioner threatening the victim and hampering with the investigation.
7. Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
30.10.2025 Vv 3/5
To
1. The Special Judge for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, 2012, Dharmapuri.
2. The Inspector of Police, AWPS-Dharmapuri Police Station, Dharmapuri District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
4/5
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
Vv Crl.O.P.No.29550 of 2025 30.10.2025 5/5