Karuppasamy @ Vignesh v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Awps-Kovilpatti

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Karuppasamy @ Vignesh ... Petitioner/Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep By the Inspector of Police, AwpsKovilpatti, Kovilpatti, Thoothukkudi District. (Crime No.38/2026).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan, For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.38 of 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 10.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(A) r/w 4, 9(l), 9(m), 9(n) r/w 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 351(2) of BNS, in Crime No.38 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to matrimonial dispute, the parents of the defacto complainant were living separately and after their separation, her mother shifted her residence to her parental home and she lived along with her children, including the defacto complainant. During that period, the petitioner used to come to the house of the defacto complainant and stayed therein. During September 2025, at about 09.30 a.m., the petitioner allegedly sent the mother of the defacto complainant out of the house, thereafter, he behaved inappropriately with the defacto complainant, who was aged 11 years old at the time of occurrence. Hence, the complaint. 2/7

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 he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.05.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. 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. He would further submit that the investigation is not yet completed. Considering the grave nature of offence, 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 facts that though the alleged occurrence took place during September, 2025, the 3/7

FIR was registered only on 09.05.2026, which shows that the complaint was lodged belatedly and the fact that the statement of victim under Section 183 of BNSS was recorded and also considering the fact that the petitioner has no previous case to his credit as well as taking into account of 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 Sessions Judge, POCSO Court, Thoothukudi, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent daily at 10.30 a.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;

4/7

[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. 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) 25.06.2026 PNM 5/7

TO

1. The Sessions Judge, POCSO Court, Thoothukudi

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai

3. The Inspector of Police, AWPS-Kovilpatti, Kovilpatti, Thoothukkudi District.

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

6/7

P. DHANABAL,J PNM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.12523 of 2026 Date : 25/06/2026 7/7