Govindan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Thallakulam

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.02.2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.1531 of 2026 1.Govindan 2.T.Manjula ... Petitioners Vs.

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thallakulam, Madurai District.

(Crime No.03 of 2026) ... Respondent (Amended as per order of this court dated 05.02.2026 in CRL MP(MD)No.2386 of 2026 in CRL OP(MD)No.1531 of 2025) For Petitioners : Mr.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.03 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/7

ORDER: The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 11(1) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in Crime No. 03 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the petitioners is that on misunderstanding arose between the petitioners and one Karthikeyan, on payment of electricity charges and the issue was amicably settled between the petitioner and one Karthikeyan, for payment of electricity charges. When the above matter was discussed, the 2nd daughter of the said Karthikeyan namely Priyadharshini recorded the same and when the petitioners enquired about the same, the said Karthikeyan arrogantly replied that she will record everything like this.

Since, the said Karthikeyan and his family continued their arrogant behavior, the petitioners requested the said Karthikeyan to vacate their house through the broker namely another one Karthikeyan and said Karthikeyan promised to vacate the house in the month of May, after the completion of Annual exams in the school. The discussion between the petitioners, 3rd respondent and the broker was again recorded by the said Priyadharshini. Annoyed by the same, the petitioners requested the said Karthikeyan to vacate the house immediately.

angry and made her daughter Priyadharsini to give a complaint dated 03.11.2025 before the respondent, that the petitioners are giving sexual harassment. The said Karthikeyan asked the broker to get Rs.1 Crore from the petitioners to withdraw the complaint filed before the respondnet. On 13.11.2025, without any intimation the said Karthikeyan and his family has partly vacated the house. The petitioners' approached the broker and tried to pay back the lease amount but the said Karthikeyan refused to receive the same and threatened the petitioners. Hence, the 2nd petitioner made a compliant dated 26.11.2025 before the Commissioner of Police, Madurai. The same was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, D1 - Tallakulam Police Station (Law & Order), Madurai. On enquiry, the said Karthikeyan admitted that the dispute between the petitioners and his family is related to the lease between them. Hence, the apprehension of arrest. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioners.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

3/7

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioners are serious in nature.

5.According to the prosecution, it is a POCSO case but according to the petitioners, it is a landlord tenant dispute and the present complaint is a false complaint.

6.This Court directed the prosecution to ascertain whether the victim is still in the disputed place. It is reported that the victim is not available. 7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 8.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Madurai, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready and on further 4/7

conditions that:

[a]the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity. [b]the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required. [c]the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d]the petitioners 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 is 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].

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

17.02.2026 TMG 5/7

TO

1. Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thallakulam, Madurai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.

6/7

S.SRIMATHY,J TMG

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.1531 of 2026 Date : 17.02.2026 7/7