Divakar @ Perumal vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6(1) of POCSO Act, in Crime No.2 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the victim girl are known to each other. The petitioner abducted the victim girl to his house and forced her to have sexual intercourse on several times, saying that he would buy her dresses and make up kit when no one was at the house, as a result, the victim is two months pregnant. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is under incarceration since 01.02.2026 and that the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case and even according to the allegation made in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS and even according to the FIR, the relationship is only consensual in nature. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defacto complainant has given a similar complaint in the year of 2025 and this is her modus operandi.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS by the Magistrate and opposed the grant of bail.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

While perusing the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, this Court could able to find that the relationship was consensual in nature and the age of the victim is 16 year at the relevant point of time and apart from that, the victim has also given a similar complaint in the month of June 2025 against some other person. Hence, taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances and upon the fact that the petitioner has been under incarceration since 01.02.2026 and upon the further fact that the complaint came to be registered in the month of February 2026 for the occurrence took place on December 2025, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with certain conditions:

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Principal POCSO Court, Salem, subject to the following conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

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

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.