Allowed

Prabakaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC15 Oct 2025CRL MP(MD)/14330/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner convicted under Section 137(2) BNS by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul sought suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal. Finding arguable points and delay in final hearing, and considering his health, the High Court suspended the sentence and granted bail on conditions including a bond with two sureties and monthly appearance before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended; petitioner enlarged on bail on Rs.25,000 bond with two sureties and condition of monthly appearance before trial court.

Prabakaran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.14330 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

Crl.M.P(MD)No.14330 of 2025 in Crl.A(MD)No.1096 of 2025

¶7

Prabakaran ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palani, Dindigul District. Crime No.36 of 2024.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 430(1) of BNSS, to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed in Spl.S.C.No.60 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul, dated 23.09.2025 and enlarge the petitioner/appellant on bail pending disposal of the above appeal.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karuna,

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (criminal Side)

¶14

1/7

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.14330 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to suspend the sentence imposed in Spl.S.C.No.60 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul, dated 23.09.2025 and enlarge the petitioner/appellant on bail pending disposal of the above appeal.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the victim girl are relatives and they loved each other. When the same was known to the victim’s parents, they reprimanded and warned her; that on 01.10.2024, the victim girl was sent to Thoothukudi along with their relative, Ravi; that both of them reached Palani Bus Stand at 21:30 hours, whereupon Ravi informed the victim girl that he was going to a nearby shop and left the place and that the accused took advantage, abducted the victim girl, who was under 18 years of age and took her to Room No.201, CM Lodge, Vadipatti, Maduai, where he subjected her to aggravated sexual assault. On the basis of the complaint lodged by defacto complainant, who is working as Legal cum Probation Officer, District Child Protection Unit, Dindiugl, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.36 of 2024 for the offence under Section 137(2) of 2/7

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.14330 of 2025

¶22

BNS and Sections 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act and subsequently, altered into offences under Section 87 of BNS and Section 5(1), 6, 5(n) of POCSO Act.

¶23

The respondent police, after completing the investigation, has filed the final report and the case was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.60 of 2025 and the same was pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul.

¶24

During trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.12 and exhibited 22 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. Whereas, the defence had adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence.

¶25

The learned Sessions Judge, upon considering the evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments on both the sides, has passed the impugned judgment dated 23.09.2025 convicting the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 137(2) of BNS and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of R.5,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and acquitted him for the offence under Section 87 of BNS and Section 6 of

¶26

3/7

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.14330 of 2025

¶29

POCSO Act. The Trial Court has suspended the sentence imposed on the petitioner till the filing of the appeal. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Appeal along with the above Miscellaneous Petition seeking suspension of sentence.

¶30

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that there are enough materials available on record against the petitioner and hence, he strongly opposed to grant suspension of sentence.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there are several infirmities in the prosecution case and further there are contradictions in material particulars between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He would further submit that the petitioner has already paid the fine amount.

¶32

8.This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State and also perused the materials available on record.

¶33

4/7

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.14330 of 2025

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that certain infirmities and inconsistencies in this case and also certain contradictions in material particulars. The fact remains that there are arguable points involved in this criminal appeal and further the criminal appeal is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future and considering the health issues, this Court is of the view that the petitioner herein is entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence.

¶37

In the result, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered. Accordingly, the relief of suspension of sentence and bail is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions :

¶38

(i) the petitioner is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul ;

¶39

(ii) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Trial Judge may obtain a copy of any valid identity proof to ensure their identity ;

¶40

5/7

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.14330 of 2025

¶43

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court once in a month i.e., on the first working day of every English calendar month at 10.30 a.m., until further orders and if he is not able to appear before the trial Court on any day, he shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C (355 of BNSS) and shall appear before the trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of his absence, as directed by the trial Court.

¶44

15.10.2025

¶45

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No das

¶46

¶47

1.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dindigul.

¶48

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶49

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

¶50

6/7

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.14330 of 2025

¶53

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶54

das

¶55

Order made in Crl.M.P(MD)No.14330 of 2025 in Crl.A(MD)No.1096 of 2025

¶56

Dated: 15.10.2025

¶57

7/7

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Prabakaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabakaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaji Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Saravanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Pushpa Vs Balubharathi

Baskar Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Deputy Superintendent of Police

Subash Chandar @ Subash Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Ramalakshmi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu