Madras High Court
Ramarajan vs The State Rep By, The Inspector Of ... on 13 May, 2026
CRL OP No. 12197 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
CRL OP No. 12197 of 2026
Ramarajan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State Rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
Arani AWPS,
Tiruvannamalai District.
Crime No. 8/2025.
..Respondent(s)
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS to grant bail
to the petitioner in Spl.S.C.No. 145 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for
Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai
District.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Balaji
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vinothraja,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.05.2025, for the offences under Sections 354B, 376(2)(1), 376(2)(n), 376(2)
(f) of IPC and Section 5(l), (n), (k) r/w. 6(1), 17, 21(1) of POCSO Act and Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, in Spl.S.C.No.145 of __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 12197 of 2026 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District, seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl aged about 16 years is the daughter of the petitioner. On 30.01.2022, the petitioner, in drunken mood, came to the house and taking advantage of the loneliness of the victim girl, the petitioner committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. On 13.06.2022 at about 04.30 to 06.00 hours at Reddipalayam Sri Supramaniswamy Temple, A2 married the victim girl. A3 and A4 performed the marriage. Hence, the case.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the marriage took place in the presence of elders. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is in incarceration for more than a year and that the other accused were granted anticipatory bail and hence, prays for grant of bail to this petitioner.
4.Per contra, Mr.R.Vinothraja, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent Police, would submit that the petitioner is none other than the father of the victim girl and the case has been taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.145 of 205 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 12197 of 2026 Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District, and the matter is now pending for trial. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail.
5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire materials on record.
6.Considering the rival submissions and the nature of offence and also considering the fact that the case has been taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.145 of 205 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District, and the matter is now pending for trial, and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner for more than a year, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:
[a] 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, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai on all working days at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 12197 of 2026 which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he 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. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
13-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MKN To
1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai.
__________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 12197 of 2026
2.The Inspector of Police, Arani AWPS, Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Vellore.
__________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 12197 of 2026 P.DHANABAL J.
MKN CRL OP No. 12197 of 2026 13-05-2026 __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis