← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/6708/2026granted

Vadivel v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police,Awps Jeeyapuram

2026-04-17Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Vadivel

...Petitioner/Sole Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Jeeyapuram A.W.P.S., Trichy.

(Crime No. 6 of 2026 )

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Karthikeyan Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 6 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6

The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 5(n), 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 in Crime No. 6 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the brotherin-law of the victim girl, who aged about 16 years. The petitioner has committed penetrative sexual assault with the victim on 27.12.2025 and 26.01.2026, due to which the victim girl has become pregnant. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the alleged occurrence took place on 27.12.2025 and 26.01.2026 and however, the FIR has been registered only on 11.03.2026. He would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.03.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

2/6

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the case has been registered under Sections 5(n), 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 in Crime No. 6 of 2026. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the facts that the alleged occurrence took place on 27.12.2025 and 26.01.2026 and however, the FIR has been registered only on 11.03.2026 and by this time, the material part of investigation might have been completed and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

3/6

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

4/6

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 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].

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

(P D B J) 17.04.2026 apd To 1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The Inspector of Police, Jeeyapuram A.W.P.S., Trichy.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6708 of 2026 Date : 17.04.2026 6/6