Dismissed¶31

Mahendramoorthi v. The State Rep By The Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Mar 2026CRL OP/5362/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court CRL OP 5362 of 2026 dated 03-03-2026, C. Kumarappan J.; bail under Section 483 BNSS refused; POCSO Act 2012 Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6 aggravated penetrative sexual assault; Crime No.36/2025 All Women Police Station Bhavani Erode; arrest/remand 18.10.2025; custody period not extenuating circumstance; likelihood of tampering with witnesses; petition dismissed; no relief granted.

What did the court decide?

The period spent by the petitioner in judicial custody since 18.10.2025 cannot be treated as an extenuating circumstance favouring bail, in view of the nature of the allegations against him. ¶25

Mahendramoorthi Vs The State Rep By The… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 5362 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 5362 of 2026

¶6

Mahendramoorthi

¶7

S/o Sekar, D.No.149.Gettisamudram Colony, Bhavani, Erode District.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The State Rep By The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Bhavani. (Cr.No.36/2025)

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal in Crime No.36 of 2025 on the file of All Women Police Station, Bhavani, Erode District.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.P.Dharmaraja For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.10.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6 of Protection

¶16

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in Crime No.36 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶17

Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

CRL OP No. 5362 of 2026

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is alleged to have

¶21

committed sexual assault on the victim girl and, due to the same, the victim got pregnant. Hence, the case.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has

¶23

been falsely implicated in this case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 18.10.2025 and is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶24

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation is still pending and the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶25

From the submissions made on either side, though the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.10.2025, the same cannot be termed as an extenuating circumstance in view of the nature of the allegations made against him. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, who is aged about 37 years

¶26

Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

CRL OP No. 5362 of 2026

¶29

and having three female children, had committed the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault against a minor girl. Therefore, this Court is of the view that though the petitioner has been behind bars since 18.10.2025, taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances is of the view that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of tampering with the

¶30

witnesses. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶31