IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Kuppan Mudaliyar @ Kuppusamy S/o.Ekambaram, No.148/1, K.H.Back Side, Perumugai, Vellore, Vellore District.

...Appellant/Petitioner Vs

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vellore, Vellore District.

2.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Vellore, Vellore District.

Crime No.40/2025.

...Respondents/Complainants

3.Megala W/o.Selvam, Marimalai Nagar, KH Back Side, Perumugai, Vellore District.

...Respondent/De-facto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to call for the records in pursuant to the Crl.M.P.No.865/2025 before the Special Judge for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, 2012 Vellore, Vellore District vide order dated: 11.11.2025 and set aside the same and enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.40/2025 pending on the file of the respondents police.

For Appellant: Mr.M.Sathish Kumar For Respondents: Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 and R2 Mr.P.Gowtham Legal Aid Counsel for R3

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the dismissal of the petitioner’s application for bail in Crl.M.P.No.865 of 2025 dated 11.11.2025. The petitioner was arrested on 10.09.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 9(l), 9(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act 2012 and the Sections were altered to under Sections 9(1), 9(m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 2015.

2. The allegation in the FIR is that the appellant was running a provisional store, had inappropriately touched the breast and the private part of the de-facto complainant’s daughter/victim girl, aged about 11 years, when she came to purchase certain groceries; and that the appellant had committed similar offences in the month of May 2025 and thus, liable for the aforesaid offences.

3. Mr.M.Sathish Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the allegations are false; that the appellant has a valid defence before the trial Court; that he has been in custody since 10.09.2025 and his further custody is not required for the purpose of investigation, as the respondents police have filed the Final Report; and prayed for allowing the appeal.

4. Mr.S.Raja Kumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, would confirm that the Final Report has been filed and has been taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.197 of 2025.

5. Though the victim was served, none has entered an appearance.

Hence, this Court appointed Mr.P.Gowtham, Legal Aid Counsel for the third respondent/de-facto complainant.

6. Mr.P.Gowtham, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the third respondent/de-facto complainant, would submit that the appellant is an habitual offender and even as per the averments in the FIR, he had committed the offence once in May 2025, and only after he had committed the offence for the second time the impugned FIR was lodged; and since the appellant had committed grave offences, no indulgence shall be shown to the appellant and he opposed the grant of bail.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the third respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the records.

8. Admittedly, the appellant is in custody from 10.09.2025. The Final Report has also been filed before the Trial Court, which has also been taken on file as aforesaid. Hence, this Court is of the view, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, that further incarceration of the appellant is not required for the purpose of the investigation. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant subject to the following conditions:

(i) The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two suret