Siva v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 02.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 4339 of 2026 Siva ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.1 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ananda Raj Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 1 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 5(1) and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 351(2) of BNS, in Crime No.1 of 2026, on the file of the respondent 1/4

police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl is 15 years old. When she stayed at her home, the first accused by threatening the victim girl as if he is going to murder her mother, had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, due to that above said incident, the victim girl decided to left the home and to go with her lover. Therefore, she informed the same to the 2nd accused. The 2nd accused met the victim girl and on the assurance that he will send her safely, he picked up her with him to a burial ground in the mid night hours, there, he also had sexual intercourse with her forcibly and left her in that place itself. Thereafter, the nearby people found her and her parents lodged the present complaint through child helpline.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and she was falsely implicated in this case and she is no way connected in the above said incident. She has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Due to previous dispute, the present complaint has been lodged against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

2/4

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. By threatening the victim girl both accused have sexual relationship with her. The statement of the victim under Section 183(5) of BNSS has been registered, which clearly shows the specific overt act of the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has no previous case.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and considering the gravity of offence and also considering the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183(5) of BNSS, this Court is declined to grant anticipatory bail, at this stage.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. (P D B J) 02.06.2026 TM To 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

3/4

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 4339 of 2026 Date : 02.06.2026 4/4