Arun Kumar v. State By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Arun Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Thanipadi Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

Crime No.178 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.178 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police. For petitioner :

Mr.S.Silambu Selvan 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 03.09.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections "Girl Missing @ 87, 64(2)(m), 351(3) of BNS r/w under Sections 5(l), 6(l) of POCSO Act, 2012, in Crime No.178 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is already a married man, closely associated himself with the victim girl, abducted her to a separate house, and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. It is further alleged that he continuously harassed and assaulted the victim. Based on the said occurrence, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not abducted the victim girl; rather, she voluntarily accompanied him. It was further contended that both of them lived together for some time as husband and wife. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the victim girl is aged about 13 years, while the petitioner is aged about 31 years. Taking advantage of the minor victim, the petitioner abducted her to his house and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. It was further submitted that he also took away the jewels belonging to the victim. He further submitted that the investigation in this case is still pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail.

2/4

5. This Court has carefully perused the statement of the victim girl, which reveals disturbing facts that the petitioner forcibly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault, beaten her when she resisted, locked and confined her in the house, and took her jewels.

6. Considering the allegations against the petitioner are of a serious nature and taking note of the fact that the investigation is not concluded, this Court is of the view that grant bail at this stage will hamper the investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 03.11.2025 cda K.RAJASEKAR, J.

3/4

cda To 1.The Inspector of Police, AWPS Tiruvannamalai Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

03.11.2025 4/4