Binu @ Peter vs State Of Tamil Nadu

P. Dhanabal, J

The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.12.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) of IPC and Section 5(1), 6, 17 of POCSO Act, in Crime No.7 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner kidnaped the victim girl from the house of the victim and committed sexual assault against the victim girl. Hence, the case.

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. Investigation in this case has been completed, final report was filed and trial commenced. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The petitioner kidnapped the victim girl and committed sexual assault upon her. He has two previous cases pending against him. Investigation has been completed and final report has also been filed before the concerned Court. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

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

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, the investigation has been completed, final report has been filed before the concerned Court and trial commenced, though the petitioner has some previous cases he was granted bail in those cases and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, 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 POCSO Act Cases, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil, at 10.30 a.m., on all working days until further orders:

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

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

[e] 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;

[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].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.