Balamurugan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Palani

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17/02/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Balamurugan ... Petitioner/Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palani,Dindigul District.

(Crime No.45/2025).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.S.Sudhanthiran, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-58 B. For Bail in Crime No. 45/2025 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/5

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.01.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 11(5) r/w 12, 7 r/w 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act, in Crime No.45 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had illegal relationship with the defacto complainant. When she asked him to marry her, she uploaded her 15 year old daughter's photo in instagram in awkward manner which has been circulated in the social media. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 22.01.2026. Hence, he seeks bail to the petitioner.

2/5

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence against a minor victim girl. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the seriousness of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

6. Further on perusal of the FIR, it is seen that the victim girl's name is shown in the FIR. Hence, the prosecution is directed to remove the name of the victim girl from the FIR.

17.02.2026 PJL 3/5

TO

1. Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Dindigul District.

2. Do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindugal District.

3. The Superintendent, District Prison, Dindigul District.

4.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palani,Dindigul District.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

S.SRIMATHY,J PJL

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.3298 of 2026 Date : 17/02/2026 5/5