A.Thammiah @ Thammaiya v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Oddanchatram-Awps

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 9558 of 2026 A.Thammiah @ Thammaiya ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.11 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Muthu Ganesa Pandian Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 11 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 9(m) and 10 of POCSO Act and Sections 351(2), 332(c) of BNS, in Crime No.11 of 2026, on the file of the 1/6

respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that while the defacto complainant's elder daughter was alone in their house, the accused person went to their house and asked for drinking water. At that time, he touched her breast. After three days, the victim revealed the incident with the defacto complainant. Hence, he case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is senior citizen and Ex-service Man. Due to the property dispute, the defacto complainant lodged the false case against him. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the offences are grave in nature. The statement of the victim under Section 183(5) of BNS has been recorded. The petitioner has no previous case. Investigation is still pending. He vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/6

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

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, already the statement of the victim under Section 183(5) of BNS has been recorded, this Court also perused the statement, according to the petitioner, there is a land dispute between the parties regarding sale of property, the alleged occurrence took place on 30.03.2026 and the FIR has been registered on 07.04.2026, there is a delay in lodging the complaint and registering the FIR, there is no previous case against the petitioner and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Dindigul, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 Magistrate 3/6

concerned and on further condition 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 offences of similar nature.

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

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[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 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 03.06.2026 TM To 4/6

1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Dindigul. 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Oddanchatram, Dindigul District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 9558 of 2026 Date : 03.06.2026 6/6