Allowed

Rajendran v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC26 Nov 2025CRL OP(MD)/16098/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail sought under Section 483 BNSS in a POCSO case alleging aggravated penetrative sexual assault on one victim and misbehaviour with her younger sister. Noting prolonged custody, ongoing trial, and that the second victim turned hostile, the court granted bail on conditions including daily reporting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to daily reporting before trial court and other conditions.

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

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.16098 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 26.11.2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶7

CRL OP(MD)No.16098 of 2025

¶8

Rajendran ... Petitioner/Accused

¶9

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Sendhamaram Police Station, Tenkasi District. (Crime No.96 of 2024) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS

¶13

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.96 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

CRL OP(MD). No.16098 of 2025

¶17

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.03.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 6, 5(1), 5(n), 7 & 8 of POCSO Act and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.96 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that, when the victim girl was alone, the petitioner misbehaved with her. Thereafter, in the year 2018, she was taken to an agricultural field and subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault. On 10.03.2024, the petitioner allegedly misbehaved with her younger sister as well. Hence, the complaint.

¶20

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 in judicial custody from 12.03.2024. Hence, he seeks bail to the petitioner.

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

CRL OP(MD). No.16098 of 2025

¶24

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that twhen

¶25

the victim girl was alone, the petitioner misbehaved with her. Thereafter, in the year 2018, she was taken to an agricultural field and subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault. On 10.03.2024, the petitioner allegedly misbehaved with her younger sister as well. Therefore, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶26

The petitioner was arrested on 12.03.2024 and has been in judicial custody for several months. The trial is in progress, and there are two victims. The second victim has turned hostile and has stated that no such occurrence took place. Considering the above facts and also considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶27

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing 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 Principal Sessions Judge, Tenkasi, and on further conditions that :-

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

CRL OP(MD). No.16098 of 2025

¶31

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity.

¶32

[b] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶33

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶34

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶35

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 is 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].

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

CRL OP(MD). No.16098 of 2025

¶39

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(S S Y J)

26.11.2025

jbr

The Principal Sessions Judge, Tenkasi.

¶45

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

¶46

The Inspector of Police, Sendhamaram Police Station, Tenkasi District.

¶47

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

¶48

5/6

¶49

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

¶50

CRL OP(MD). No.16098 of 2025

¶51

S.SRIMATHY,J.

¶52

jbr

¶53

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16098 of 2025

¶54

Date : 26.11.2025

¶55

6/6

¶56

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

Rajendran v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seethalakshmi Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Palayamkottai

Suresh Kannan @ Nettur Kannan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R. Manikandan Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police

Pooma @ Boovammal Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Sindupatti

Aravindkumar Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ettayapuram

Esakkumuthu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu