The Court allows bail based on the victim's consent and no further requirement for custody during proceedings.

JUDGMENT

The appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant’s bail petition filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode.

2. The appellant is an accused in Crime No.455 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and was arrested on 02.10.2025. He moved a bail petition before the Trial Court, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/petitioner/accused had a love affair with the victim girl; and that, on the promise of marriage, the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault.

4. Mr.B.Balavijayan, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, would submit that originally an FIR was registered on the complaint given by the Social Welfare Officer, Perundurai Panchayat, against one Mr.Sanjay, who is said to have committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim; and that thereafter, on investigation, the appellant/accused was arrested, and the victim girl, who is now aged 20 years, is willing to marry the appellant.

5. The victim girl is present, and Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan, the learned counsel, is represented by the victim.

6. Mr.S.Balaji, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first and second respondents, on instructions, would submit that the victim was enquired and the victim submitted that she is willing to marry the appellant; and that they had a love affair earlier.

7. The victim, identified by Mr.T.R.Ramesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District, is present in person and would confirm that the victim does not wish to pursue the case against the appellant, as she intends to marry the appellant.

8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

9. Admittedly, the victim is now aged 20 years. Considering the statement of the victim and the fact that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual in nature, this Court is of the view that further custody of the appellant is not required for the purpose of trial. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and release the appellant on bail on the following conditions.

(i) The appellant shall execute 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 learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode;

(ii) the appellant shall appear before the second respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m. until further orders, except on the hearing dates before the trial Court;

(iii) the appellant and 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 and mobile numbers to ensure their identity;

(iv) the appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearings;

(v) the respondent police are directed to ensure that there is no threat to the life and safety of the de facto complainant. In the event of any threat, appropriate steps are to be taken.

(vi) the appellant shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

(vii) the appellant shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(viii) the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(ix) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Sessions Judge/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the appellant released on bail by the