Ramalingeswaran v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps Thilagar Thidal

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Ramalingeswaran ... Petitioner/Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, AWPS Thilagar Thidal, Madurai City. Crime No.22/2026.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karunanithi for Mr.S.Vijayakumar, For intervener : Mr.S.Muniyandi For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.22/2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. 1/7

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.06.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 75, 127 of BNS in Crime No. 22 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 30.05.2026 at about 08.30 p.m., the petitioner, who was working as a Doctor at Nainar Eye Hospital, Madurai, allegedly called the defacto complainant, who was undergoing internship at the said hospital, to his room. It is alleged that he locked the door and sexually harassed her. Upon the defacto complainant raising an alarm, the petitioner left the room. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case . As per the CCTV footage collected from the hospital, there is no occurrence took place as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is 2/7

undergoing medical treatment for his mental depression. In this case, statements of material witnesses were recorded by the prosecution. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.06.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that the petitioner, who is working as a Doctor has sexually harassed the defacto complainant, who was undergoing internship. The petitioner is an influential person. Due to his influence, he was not yet arrested and undergoing treatment in the Government Hospital. In this case, investigation is not yet completed. Considering the gravity of offence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the case has been registered against the accused, who has sexually harassed her. Though the petitioner has no previous case, considering the nascent stage of investigation and nature of grave offence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. 3/7

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

7.Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the nature of the offence and the contention of the petitioner that he is undergoing treatment for his mental depression, which shows that his mental condition had been affected and further considering the fact that the statements of the material witnesses have already been recorded by the prosecution, as well as taking into account that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents and 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, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, and on further conditions that:

4/7

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders 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 him 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. 5/7

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) 15.06.2026 PNM TO

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.

2. Do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai District.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai

4. The Inspector of Police, AWPS Thilagar Thidal, Madurai City.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

6/7

P. DHANABAL,J PNM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11127 of 2026 Date : 15/06/2026 7/7