Allowed

Prakash v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC28 Jul 2026CRL OP(MD)/15536/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted bail to the petitioner accused of sexual assault under the POCSO Act. The court imposed strict conditions, including reporting weekly and a ban on entering the victim's jurisdiction, for a bond of Rs. 15,000.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs. 15,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including weekly reporting.

Prakash Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15536 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 28.07.2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No. 15536 of 2026

Prakash

...Petitioner

State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thilagar Thidal, Madurai City. (Crime No.43 of 2025)

¶12

...Respondent/Complainant

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Surya Advocate For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side)

¶14

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS

¶15

PRAYER :-

¶16

For Bail in Cr.No. 43 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

¶17

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial

¶19

custody on 22.12.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 5(l), 5(m) and 6 of POCSO Act, in Crime No.43 of 2025 on the file of the respondent

¶20

1/6

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15536 of 2026

¶23

police, seeks bail.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a known person to the victim's family and entered into the house of the victim girl, who is aged about 7 years, and inappropriately touched the victim's girl's private parts and also committed sexual assault on the victim girl. Hence, the case has been registered and the petitioner has been arrested.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submitted that it is not a case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. He is ready to co-operate with the investigation. He is in custody from 22.12.2025. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

¶26

The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the statement of the victim and her sister under Section 183(5) BNSS has also been recorded. It cannot be contended that it is not aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Sections 5(m) and 6 of POCSO Act is also involved in this case and he has to punished for the above. He would

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15536 of 2026

¶30

further submit that the investigation in this case has been completed, final report has been filed before the Special Court and the case is pending in Spl.S.C.No.48 of 2026 on the file of the Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Madurai. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶31

This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

6.Considering the rival submissions made on either side, nature of the offences, specific overt act attributed against the petitioner, statement of victim girl's sister recorded under Section 183(5) of BNSS and other connected circumstances, and also considering the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the condition:

¶33

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for

¶34

POCSO Act Cases, Madurai , and on further conditions that:

¶35

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Madurai, at 10.30

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15536 of 2026

¶39

a.m., on all working days, for a period of four weeks.

¶40

[c] the petitioner shall not enter into the police

¶41

jurisdictional limit, where the victim girl is residing:

¶42

[d] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the

¶43

offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

¶44

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

¶45

[f] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶46

[g] 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 51730].

¶47

4/6

¶48

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

¶49

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15536 of 2026

¶50

[h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be

¶51

registered under Section 269 BNS.

(K R S J) 28.07.2026

1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Madurai.

¶56

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thilagar Thidal, Madurai City. (Crime No.43 of 2025) 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.

¶57

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

¶58

5/6

¶59

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

¶60

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15536 of 2026

¶61

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

¶62

¶63

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 15536 of 2026

¶64

Date : 28.07.2026

¶65

6/6

¶66

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

Prakash v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

Jothi Lakshmi Vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Awps-Sivakasi

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

M.Mathan Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep by

Mahendran Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Prasanth Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Inspector of Police

Prasanth Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Pew-Trichy City