Dismissed¶25

Balu v. State rep.by

Madras HC22 Apr 2026CRL OP/10257/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Crl.O.P.No.10257 of 2026, Balu v. State (Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station), Crime No.100 of 2026; anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS 2023 refused; alleged POCSO Act offence; sexual assault of defacto complainant and her minor daughter; money dispute motive; investigation pending; gravity of offence; petition dismissed on 22.04.2026 by C.Kumarappan J.

What did the court decide?

Considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner against the defacto complainant and her minor daughter, and the fact that the investigation is still pending, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. ¶21

Balu Vs State rep.by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.10257 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.04.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.10257 of 2026

Balu

... Petitioner

Vs.

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station. Crime No.100 of 2026 ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in the above Cr.No.100 of 2026 on the file of the respondent.

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Ponni For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section

¶14

POCSO Act, in Crime No.100 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.10257 of 2026 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that due to money dispute,

¶18

petitioner had sexually assaulted the defacto complainant and her daughter. . Hence, the case.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner as against the defacto complainant and her minor daughter and upon the fact that the investigation is still pending, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

¶22

2/4

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.10257 of 2026

¶25