K.Anraj v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.05.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR K.Anraj S/o.Kasipandi
...Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep by The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Puliyangudi Tenkasi district Cr.No.13 of 2026.
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumar Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No.13 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. 1/6
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.04.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 333 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 10, 7, 8 and 9 of the POCSO Act in Crime No.13 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.04.2026 at about 05.00 p.m., when the victim girl was alone in the house of the defactocomplainant, the petitioner trespassed into the house, touched her private parts, and sexually assaulted her. 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 the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.04.2026 and he has been in custody for more than 41 days. Hence, he has prayed for the grant of bail.
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 the POCSO Act. 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 period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: [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 Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, and on further conditions that: 3/6
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Monday at 10.30a.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;
[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].
4/6
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.
(R V J) 20.05.2026 gvn To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri.
2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Puliyangudi, Tenkasi District.
3. The Officer-in-Charge, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
gvn
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9786 of 2026 Date : 20.05.2026 6/6