Dhurvasalu Vs State Represented by

Dhurvasalu vs State Represented by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jan 29, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1419330

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1419330
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jan 29, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/1975/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dhurvasalu

Respondent

State Represented by

Excerpt

.....the case has been registered.3. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a falsecomplaint has been lodged against the petitioner due to the previous enmity and it is not a case of penetrative sexual assault and is ready to cooperate with the investigation. hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.4. learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondentpolice reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that it is a case of forcibly entering into the house and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, and the final report was also filed and the same is pending in s.c.no.5 of 2026. hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 5.i have gone through the statement recorded from the victim girl and it revealed various disturbing facts and it is not only forcible entering and also attacking the victim severely and thereafter, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault taking advantage of her loneliness. hence, if the petitioner is granted bail, it would severely affect the trial process. considering the gravity of the offence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. mpa index:yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderinternet:yes neutral citation:yes/no to 1.state represented by 2.the public prosecutor high court, madras. k.rajasekar j. mpa crl op no. 1975 of

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Dhurvasalu S/o. Jaganathan, Pallakollai Village, Maliyapattu, Panamadangi Post, K.V.kuppam Taluk, Vellore District. Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State Represented by Respondent(s)

PRAYER pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2026 o the file of the Special Judge,(Exclusive trial of POCSO Act Cases) at Vellore and pass such further or oter orders For Petitioner(s): M/S.S.Thirugnanam For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.11.2025, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 5(1) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and section 332(b), 77 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.54 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is aged about

35 years, taking advantage of loneliness of the victim child, forcibly entered into the house and attacked her and also at the time, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault forcibly and caused severe injuries to her and went away from there. Thereafter, it was informed to the family members, and the family members went to the house of the petitioner and questioned him and thereafter they went to the police station and lodged the complaint. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a false

complaint has been lodged against the petitioner due to the previous enmity and it is not a case of penetrative sexual assault and is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent

police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that it is a case of forcibly entering into the house and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, and the final report was also filed and the same is pending in S.C.No.5 of 2026. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 5.I have gone through the statement recorded from the victim girl and it revealed various disturbing facts and it is not only forcible entering and also attacking the victim severely and thereafter, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault taking advantage of her loneliness. Hence, if the petitioner is granted bail, it would severely affect the trial process. Considering the gravity of the offence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Mpa Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To 1.State Represented by 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. K.RAJASEKAR J. mpa CRL OP No. 1975 of

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Dhurvasalu vs State Represented by Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar