✦ Madras High Court

Manikandan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

2 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed

Key paragraphs

  • Para 66. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. (S S Y J) 25.02.2026msrm3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.18042 of 2025To1. The learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Court, Dindigul.2. The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Rural All Women Police Station, Dindigul District.3. The…

Judgment

Cause title

CRL OP(MD). No.18042 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 25/02/2026PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHYCRL OP(MD). No.18042 of 2025 Manikandan ... Petitioner

/Accused VsThe State of Tamil Nadu, Rep By,The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Rural All Women Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.2 of 2025) ... Respondent

/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Prabu Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSSPRAYER :- For Bail in Spl.S.C.No.92 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Dindigul, in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.18042 of 2025

ORDER :

The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.01.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 127(2), 351(3) BNS Act 2023 and 5(f), 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012. in Spl.S.C.No.92 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Dindigul, in Crime No.2 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.

This is the second bail application before this Court. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the Tamil Teacher and he called the victim who is aged about 16 yeas and penetrative sexual assault on her several times and also threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court and he is in judicial custody from 24.01.2026. Hence, he seeks bail to the petitioner.2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.18042 of 20254. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has also been filed. He further submitted that previously the petitioner was detained under Goondas Act and he had involved in a very henious offence. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the 164 statement recorded from the victim girl, it is revealed that the petitioner has committed a serious offence, and the investigation is at a preliminary stage. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this point of time, there is a likelihood of the petitioner indulging in activities which would be prejudicial for trial. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Operative part

6.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. (S S Y J) 25.02.2026msrm3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.18042 of 2025To1. The learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Court, Dindigul.2. The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Rural All Women Police Station, Dindigul District.3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.18042 of 2025S.SRIMATHY,J. msrmORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.18042 of 2025 Date : 25.02.20265/5

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 127(2), 351(3).

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madras High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments