Madras High Court
CRL A(MD)/1244/2026 of Kalarani Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police on 10 November 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.LINGESWARAN
CRL A(MD) No. 1244 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011450432026}
Kalarani
D/o. Savuri Raj,
3/45, North Street,
Meezaloor,
Virudhunagar Taluk and District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Peraiyur Sub Division,
Madurai District.
2. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station, Peraiyur, Madurai District.
Crime No. 17/2026.
3. M.Dharmaseelan
The District Child Protection officer.
District Child Protection Unit,
Collectorate,
Madurai District- 625 020
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A) (2) of Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, seeking to set aside the order of the learned Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.779
of 2026 dated 31.08.2026 and enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime No.17 of 2026 on the file of the 1st respondent police.
For Appellant (s)
:M/s M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For Respondent(s)
: Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar,
Government Advocate (crl.side)
For R1 and R2
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the order declining bail to the petitioner/ appellant by the Principal Special court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.779 of 2026, dated 31.08.2026.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is arrayed as Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 17 of 2026. The appellant was arrested on 23.07.2026 and has been in judicial custody since then, for approximately 110 days. He further submitted that the appellant, who is aged above 50 years, is suffering from an enlarged uterus with a fundal fibroid. Therefore, he prayed that the appellant be enlarged on bail.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the appellant is arrayed as Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 17 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 5(l) read with Section 6, Section 9(p), and Section 16 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(1)
(w) (i) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. He further submitted that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed before the jurisdictional Court, though the trial has not yet commenced. It is contended that there are serious allegations against the appellant and the other co-accused. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), if the appellant is released on bail, there is a likelihood of her intimidating the victim and other prosecution witnesses. Therefore, he strongly opposed the grant of bail to the appellant. The mother of the survivor who appeared in person also opposed the bail.
4. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions put forth by either side.
5. On careful perusal of records, it is found that it is the case of the prosecution that a minor inmate residing at the Blossom Spring Home Trust building (Children Home) at Kallikudi Taluk, Madurai Distrtict, was subjected to sexual assault by the first accused. The victim is a child staying in the said home, where this appellant worked as Psychologist/Counselor in the said home. Though the victim disclosed the crime committed on her to this appellant, she did not take any steps to rescue the child or to prevent the commission of offence. The appellant herein is arrayed as Accused No.4 in Crime No.17 of 2026.
6. The specific allegation against the appellant is that, despite having knowledge of the penetrative sexual assault committed by Accused No. 1 on the survivor/child, she failed to report the incident to the competent authority or the police. Consequently, she was charged with the offence of abetment under Section 17 of the POCSO Act, along with other relevant provisions of the POCSO Act and the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
7. Considering the health condition of the appellant and her limited role as a psychologist/counsellor, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant, subject to the following conditions:
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Madurai.
(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;
(iii) The appellant shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
(iv) On violation of any of the above conditions by the appellant, the respondent police shall move an application for cancellation of the bail before the Trial Court as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2005 SC
100. 10-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gvn
To
1. The Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Madurai.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Peraiyur Sub Division, Madurai District.
3. The Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station, Peraiyur, Madurai District.
4. The Officer-in-charge, Special Prison for Women, Madurai.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai Copy To : Section Officer ( VR Section ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
D.LINGESWARAN, J. gvn CRL A(MD) No. 1244 of 2026 10-11-2026