P.Vignesh v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Mattuthavani

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 10/06/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL P.Vignesh ... Petitioners/Accused No.2 Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Mattuthavani Police Station, Madurai District.

Crime No. 100 of 2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 100 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : K.P.Narayanakumar, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to 1/6

judicial custody on 08.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 5(1) r/w 6, 16(3), 17 of POCSO Act, in Crime No.100 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the mother of the victim girl. On 05.05.2025, when the defacto complainant searched the victim girl and found she was missing from her house and hence, lodged a complaint before the respondent police. Initially, case was registered as 'girl missing' and on enquiry, it came to know that the A1 kidnapped the victim girl, it was altered into Sections 5(1) r/w 6, 16(3), 17 of POCSO Act. 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 A1 and the victim girl loved each other and the petitioner only gave shelter to the A1 and except that no other allegation is against the petitioner and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 2/6

08.05.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that A1 kidnapped the victim girl and the petitioner also gave shelter to them and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner and the investigation is still pending. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against 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 even according to the prosecution, the petitioner only gave shelter to the main accused and except that there is no allegation against the petitioner and no previous case is pending against him 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 Special District Judge and Session Judge (POCSO Act), Madurai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. [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) 10.06.2026 dss 5/6

P. DHANABAL,J DSS To 1.The Special District Judge and Session Judge (POCSO Act), Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Mattuthavani Police Station, Madurai District.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10587 of 2026 Date : 10/06/2026 6/6