The court emphasizes the seriousness of the allegations and maintains the denial of bail based on the continued gravity of the case.

O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023.

2. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.652/2024 of Mannar Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 3 76DA , 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 354(A)(1)(iii) of the Indian Penal Code & Sections 4 (2) r/w 3, 6(1) r/w 5(g), 5(1), 5(n), 8 r/w 7, 10 r/w 9(1), 9(n), 12 r/w 11(iii) of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (PoCSO Act) & Sections

75 & 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act .

3. The prosecution case, as narrated in the order dated 09.09.2025 in B.A.No.10831/2025, reads thus:

“ On 03.06.2023, the 1st accused, who is the wife of the petitioner, removed the dress of the victim and thereafter the petitioner committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. The said heinous acts were repeated on several occasions till 26.08.2023. During the said period petitioner and his wife used to compel the victim to consume alcohol and even showed sexual video clippings to her. On the basis of a complaint filed by the victim, the petitioner was arrested on 12.07.2024 and he has been in custody since then.”(sic)

4. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since July 2024.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to the prolonged custody, the petitioner is not in a position to defend his case.

7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner.

8. The petitioner seeks his release on the ground that the continued detention will affect him in defending the case. He had earlier filed B.A.No.10831/2025. This Court dismissed the application as per order dated 09.09.2025. The offences alleged are very grave in nature. I failed to find out any change in the circumstances that existed at the time of dismissal of the earlier application.

9. Having considered the entire circumstances, I feel that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial in the matter is getting prolonged due to the delay in obtaining the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.

11. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution will take earnest efforts to complete the examination. In view of the circumstances brought out, the Director of the FSL is suo moto impleaded as additional respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for the Director of FSL.

12. The additional respondent/the Director of the FSL shall complete the examination of the material objects in this case, as expeditiously as possible.

The bail plea of the petitioner stands rejected and the bail application is disposed of as above.