Allowed¶30

Ramarajan v. The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 May 2026CRL OP/12197/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC, CRL OP No.12197 of 2026, order dated 13-05-2026, P. Dhanabal J.: conditional bail (S.483 BNSS) to father (A1) accused of raping his 16-year-old daughter and procuring her child marriage; Ss.354B, 376(2)(1), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f) IPC; S.5(l),(n),(k) r/w 6(1),17,21(1) POCSO Act; Ss.9,10 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act; Crime No.8/2025, Arani AWPS, Tiruvannamalai; trial pending Spl.S.C.No.145 of 2025, Special Court (POCSO), Tiruvannamalai; over one year incarceration; Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, daily appearance 10.30 a.m.; P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala (2005) AIR SCW 5560 on breach; S.229A IPC fresh FIR on absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to conditions, pending trial in Spl.S.C.No.145 of 2025 before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai.

Ramarajan Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner released on bail subject to conditions, pending trial in Spl.S.C.No.145 of 2025 before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner/A1, father of the alleged 16-year-old victim, facing charges under IPC, POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, in Spl.S.C.No.145 of 2025 pending trial.

¶12

Court's answer

Considering the rival submissions, the nature of offence, that the case stands taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.145 of 2025 before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai and is pending trial, and that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for more than a year, the Court inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to conditions.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Bail granted on conditions: bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai; daily reporting before that Court on all working days at 10.30 a.m. until further orders; no commission of similar offence; no absconding during investigation or trial; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure or tampering with evidence; on breach, action as per P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (P. Dhanabal J.), CRL OP No.12197 of 2026, decided 13-05-2026 - Bail granted under S.483 BNSS to Ramarajan (A1), father of the alleged 16-year-old victim girl, arrested and remanded on 09.05.2025 in Crime No.8/2025 (Arani AWPS, Tiruvannamalai District) for offences under Ss.354B, 376(2)(1), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f) IPC, Ss.5(l),(n),(k) r/w 6(1),17,21(1) POCSO Act and Ss.9,10 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. Prosecution case: aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his own daughter on 30.01.2022 and her child marriage solemnised by A2 and performed by A3 and A4 on 13.06.2022 at Reddipalayam Sri Supramaniswamy Temple. With the case pending trial in Spl.S.C.No.145 of 2025 (Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai) and incarceration exceeding one year, bail allowed on conditions: Rs.10,000/- bond with two like-sum sureties, daily reporting at 10.30 a.m. until further orders, no similar offence, no absconding, no inducement or tampering; breach actionable as laid down in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala, (2005) AIR SCW 5560; fresh FIR under S.229A IPC if the accused absconds.

¶1

CRL OP No. 12197 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13-05-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶6

CRL OP No. 12197 of 2026

Ramarajan

..Petitioner(s)

The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Arani AWPS, Tiruvannamalai District. Crime No. 8/2025.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS to grant bail to the petitioner in Spl.S.C.No. 145 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Balaji For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.05.2025, for the offences under Sections 354B, 376(2)(1), 376(2)(n), 376(2) (f) of IPC and Section 5(l), (n), (k) r/w. 6(1), 17, 21(1) of POCSO Act and Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, in Spl.S.C.No.145 of

¶16

Page1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

CRL OP No. 12197 of 2026

¶19

2025 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO

¶20

Act, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District, seeks bail.

¶21

2.The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl aged about 16 years is the daughter of the petitioner. On 30.01.2022, the petitioner, in drunken mood,

¶22

came to the house and taking advantage of the loneliness of the victim girl, the petitioner committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. On 13.06.2022 at about 04.30 to 06.00 hours at Reddipalayam Sri Supramaniswamy Temple, A2 married the victim girl. A3 and A4 performed the marriage. Hence, the case.

¶23

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the marriage took place in the presence of elders. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is in incarceration for more than a year and that the other accused were granted anticipatory bail and hence, prays for grant of bail to this petitioner.

¶24

Per contra , Mr.R.Vinothraja, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent Police, would submit that the petitioner is none other than the father of the victim girl and the case has been taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.145 of 205 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of

¶25

Page2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

CRL OP No. 12197 of 2026

¶28

Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District, and the matter is now pending for trial. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail.

¶29

5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire materials on record.

¶30

6.Considering the rival submissions and the nature of offence and also considering the fact that the case has been taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.145 of 205 on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District, and the matter is now pending for trial, and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner for more than a year, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶31

[a] the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute 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 Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai, and on further conditions that:

¶32

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Tiruvannamalai on all working days at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶33

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of

¶34

Page3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

CRL OP No. 12197 of 2026

¶37

which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;

¶38

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

¶39

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,

¶40

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

¶41

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶42

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 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].

¶43

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶44

13-05-2026

¶45

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶46

MKN

¶47

¶48