Kanchana vs The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.09.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 9(m), 10 and 21(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Crime No.248 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the first petitioner committed sexual assault on the victim child, aged about 11 years, when she went to the stationery shop and further it was threatened by the second petitioner that not to disclose the sexual assault to her parents. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been in judicial custody since 18.09.2026. He further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner touched the victim child with sexual intent or committed any act against the victim child. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the victim is aged 11 years and the petitioner aged 36 years, and is a paramour of the first petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner allegedly threatened the victim child not to disclose the incident to her parents. However, the child disclosed the incident on 17.09.2026 and the FIR was registered on 18.09.2026. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the allegation against the petitioner/A2 that he threatened the victim child not to disclose the incident, the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner and on perusing the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183(5) of BNSS, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to 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 learned District Session Judge, Ranipet, and on further conditions that:

[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., until further orders;

[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 pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.