SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18865

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
Karthik – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition | Crime No.40 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Baratha Ambethkar
For the Respondents:Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Court affirmed that granting bail in sexual harassment cases involving minors poses risks to victim safety and potential witness tampering.

Headnote:The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in the context of the petitioner seeking bail after being in custody since 16.11.2025 for serious allegations of sexual harassment involving a minor. The court found that the allegations were grave and noted the psychological impact on the victim if bail was granted, thus dismissing the petition. The primary issue framed revolved around the custody and the safety of the victim against potential witness tampering. The court reasoned that the seriousness of the case warranted refusal of bail for the petitioner. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks bail after serious allegations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. court's considerations on victim impact. (Para 6 , 7)

ORDER

This is the third bail application filed by the petitioner before this court.

2. The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

16.11.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 96, 137(2), 127(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 3, 17 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in Crime No.40 of

2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

3. This is a case of sexual harassment as defined under Section 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.11.2025. He would further submit that, in any event, further custodial interrogation is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail.

5. The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 16.11.2025 and that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is his specific contention that the victim was aged only fourteen years at the time of the occurrence and that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of his tampering with the witnesses.

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

7. Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the victim was only fourteen years old at the time of the occurrence, this Court is of the view that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it may have an adverse psychological impact on the mind of the victim. Hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top