High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD).No.7227 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 02.07.2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAICRL OP(MD).No.7227 of 2025andCrl.M.P(MD)No.8256 of 2025S.Meenakshi Sundram ... Petitioner / Accused Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by the Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station,Thiruparankundram,Madurai District.(Crime No.4 of 2025) ... Respondent / ComplainantPRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.4 of 2025on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)For Intervenor: Mr.S.Murugapandi Advocate 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.7227 of 2025ORDER : The Court made the following order :-The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police forthe offences punishable under Sections 9(1)(m), 9(1)(n), 10, 7, and 8 of the Protectionof Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Sections 126(2), 296(b),and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Crime No.4 of 2025 on thefile of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is alleged to havemisbehaved with the defacto complainant's daughter who is aged 11 years old. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is thefather-in-law of the defacto complainant, the petitioner conveyed his property to hisson Dineshkumar, who is the father of the victim girl, through a registeredsettlement deed 27.03.2023, however, his son tortured the petitioner by demandingmore money & property and also threatened him with dire consequences.Hence, the petitioner lodged a police complaint on 18.11.2024 against his son, who isthe husband of the defacto complainant. In the police enquiry, the petitioner’s songave an undertaking that he would not indulge in any dispute with the petitioner.Again, on 05.04.2025, the petitioner’s son used filthy words and make a life threatagainst the petitioner, so the petitioner lodged another police complaint before the2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.7227 of 2025Thirunagar police station and the same has been registered in Crime No.215 of2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), and 351(2) of BNS.Later, the petitioner’s son filed a civil suit in O.S.No.65 of 2025 on the file of thePrincipal District Court, Madurai, against the petitioner and the same is pending.The petitioner has also made public notice through paper publication on 11.04.2025in 'DINAMALAR' Tamil Daily against the husband of the defacto complainant. Thedefacto complainant has not denied these facts in her intervening petition. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as a counterblast on 14.04.2025, the defacto complainant, making use of her daughter, has filedthis false complaint, that too on hearsay from her sister, as if the petitioner had madea sexual assault on her daughter. The petitioner is the grandfather of the victimchild, who has more love and affection on the child. But, because of previous civiland criminal cases pending between the petitioner and her husband, the defactocomplainant filed this false case against the petitioner by making her own daughteras a tool. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged 63 years and former Vice Chairmanof Harvipatti Town Panchayat and reputable person in the society and he has notcommitted any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He is ready to abide by anycondition imposed by this Court. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.7227 of 20255. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that thedefacto complainant is none other than the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, andthe victim is the petitioner’s own grand-daughter. He would further submit that thepetitioner subjected the victim girl to sexual harassment. He would also submit thatthe statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya NagarikSuraksha Sanhita, 2023. He would also submit that there are no previous casesagainst the petitioner. However, he opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to thepetitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the intervening petitioner would submit that thepetitioner is having illegal contact with several women and he also committedsexual assault upon the daughter of the defacto complainant. Hence, he prays fordismissal of this petition.7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learnedGovernment Advocate (Crl.side) and the learned counsel for the interveningpetitioner and perused the materials available on record.8. It is seen from the records that the relationship between the parties is notdisputed. There were two previous criminal cases registered against the husband ofdefacto complainant based on complaint lodged by the petitioner on 18.11.2024 andon 11.04.2025 and also one civil suit is pending between them. This present4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.7227 of 2025complaint against the petitioner is lodged by the defacto complaint on 14.04.2025 bystating that her daughter was sexually attacked by the petitioner during Deepavali,2024. The complaint was lodged nearly six months after the alleged occurrence. Thecomplaint was lodged by the defacto complainant as she was told so by her sister,which is only hearsay. The allegations levelled by the defacto complainant is onlybad touch by petitioner, there is no serious allegations of sexual torture. So, there isprima facie chance to be a counter blast of previous cases lodged by the petitioneragainst the defacto complainant's husband (i.e) father of the victim girl. The allegedoffence could be decided only on evidence by the trial Court after full fledged trial.Since the victim statement was recorded on 28.04.2025, by this time most of theinvestigation might have been completed and custodial interrogation of thepetitioner is not necessary. The petitioner has permanent residence and deep rootsin the society and there is no chance for absconding. Considering the above factsand circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitionerwith conditions.9. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event ofarrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on whichthe order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai,on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.7227 of 2025(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to thesatisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or tothe satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, failing which, thepetition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:(a) The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left ThumbImpression in the surety bond and the Judicial Magistrate concerned mayobtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure theiridentity; and (b) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and contactnumber to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. If thepetitioner change his residential address, he shall report the same to thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai;(c) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent policedaily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders;(d) The petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation ortrial and shall cooperate for the investigation;(e) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness eitherduring investigation or trial;(f) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned JudicialMagistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against thepetitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposedand and if there is any violation of condition, the Investigation Officer iswithin his discretion to approach the Court of the learned JudicialMagistrate, concerned for cancellation of bail as per the ruling of the6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.7227 of 2025Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in P.K.Shaji/Vs/State of Kerala, (2005)AIR S.C.W.5560 and;(g) if the accused/petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can beregistered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023. Consequently, the connectedMiscellaneous Petition is closed. sd/- 02/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /07/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. VSDTo1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI,MADURAI.2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEMADURAI DISTRICT.3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.+1 CC to M/s.D.VENKATESH, Advocate ( SR-7079[I] dated 03/07/2025 )7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD).No.7227 of 2025 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7227 of 2025 Date :02/07/2025 MK/03.07.2025 8P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 8/8