Dismissed¶36

M Androse v. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC2 Apr 2026/8239/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (C.Kumarappan, J., 02-04-2026) dismisses CRL OP No. 8239 of 2026 seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for three petitioners facing BNS and POCSO Act charges in Crime No. 0008 of 2026 of AWPS-Gingee Police Station; anticipatory bail refused because custodial interrogation was held necessary in a case of alleged sexual assault of a minor victim.

What did the court decide?

This Court held that, it being a case of sexual assault meted out to the victim and custodial interrogation being required, it was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. ¶35

M Androse Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 8239 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

CRL OP No. 8239 of 2026

¶7

M Androse

¶8

S/o Murugan, No. 2-93 A, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Vikkaravandi Taluka, Kanjanru, Villupuram District.

¶9

N.Murugan

¶10

S/o Narayanan, No. 2-93 A, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Vikkaravandi Taluka, Kanjanru, Villupuram District.

¶11

M.Amala

¶12

W /o Murugan, No. 2-93 A, Mariyamman Kovil Street, Vikkaravandi Taluka, Kanjanru, Villupuram District.

¶13

..Petitioner(s)

¶14

¶15

The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police AWPS-Gingee Police Station, Villupuram District. (cr. No. 0008 of 2026)

¶16

..Respondent(s)

¶17

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest concern in Crime No. 0008 of 2026 on the file of the inspector of police AWPS-Gingee Police station, Villupuram District. On such terms and conditions as this Honble court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.

¶18

__________ Page1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

CRL OP No. 8239 of 2026

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Rajadurai

¶22

For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections

¶25

332(b), 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) of BNS and under Section 7, 8, 9(k), 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Crime No.0008 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner allegedly trespassed into the house where the victim girl was staying and sexually harassed her in the absence of the defacto complainant and when the same was

¶27

questioned, a quarrel arose involving the other petitioners. Hence, the complaint was lodged and the case was registered.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the issue arose out of a love affair between the first petitioner and the victim girl, which was not approved by the defacto complainant. Hence he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶29

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police

¶30

Page2 of 4

¶31

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

¶32

CRL OP No. 8239 of 2026

¶33

while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioners reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that due to love affair between the first petitioner and the victim, on the date of occurrence, the first petitioner sexually harassed the victim girl.

¶34

From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) it is a case of sexual assault meted out by the victim. Since custodial interrogation is required in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶35