Harisekar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 28/05/2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.POORNIMA Harisekar, S/o.Periyasamy, 3/64, East Street, Moongilpatty Post, Chellappanaickenpatty, Natham Taluk, Dindigul.

... Petitioner/Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.By, the Inspector of Police, AWPS Rural Dindigul.

(Crime No.17 of 2025).

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

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS 1/4

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.17 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 76, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 9(1), 10, 6 and 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012 in Crime No.17 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is the neighbour of the victim girl aged about 14 years caused aggravated penetrative sexual offence upon the victim girl and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 18.04.2025. Hence, he seeks bail.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner, who is the neighbour of the minor victim girl aged about 14 years had committed 2/4

penetrative sexual assault on her and threatened her with dire consequences. He would further submit that, if the accused is released on bail, there will be a threat to the victim girl and he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the evidence. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side. Perused the documents placed on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions made by the learned counsels and if the accused is released on bail, there will be a threat to the victim girl and he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the evidence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. sd/- 28/05/2025 / TRUE COPY / /06/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

MAC 3/4

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AWPS RURAL DINDIGUL 2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE DISTRICT JAIL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8956 of 2025 Date :28/05/2025 SS/SAR- /02/06/2025/ 4P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4