Karventhan Vs The State Rep by

Karventhan vs The State Rep by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Mar 30, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1435221

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/1435221
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan
Decided On: Mar 30, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/7994/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Karventhan

Respondent

The State Rep by

Excerpt

.....submitted that the petitionerhas been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. he further submits that the victim girl’s mother was running a provisional shop and sold the adulterate products, which was questioned by the petitioner. in furtherance thereof, the de-facto complainant gave a false complaint by using her minor child. he would further submit that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.09.2025 and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this court. hence, he prays for grant of bail4. per contra, the learned government advocate (criminal side)appearing for the respondent police strongly opposed the bail petition on the ground that the victim girl is aged about 6 years old and that the allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature. hence, he opposed the grant of bail5. on going through the 183 of bnss statement produced by the learnedgovernment advocate, it is seen that, there is a serious allegation made against the petitioner. though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very complaint is a motivated one, the same cannot be gone into at this stage while considering the bail application. hence, taking into consideration of the severity of the allegation and the sexual assault suffered by the victim at the hands of the petitioner, this court is of the view that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would jeopardize the prosecution and cause mental trauma to the victim girl. hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.6. accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. mp to 1.the inspector of police, all women police station, dharapuram, tiruppur district. 2.the public prosecutor, high court of madras.c.kumarappan, j.mp crl.op.no.7994 of 2026

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Karventhan, S/o.Angamuthu ... Petitioner Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District. (Crime No.27/2025) … Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.27/2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumarasamy For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.09.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 3(a), 3(d), 4(2) of POCSO Act, 2012, in Crime No.27 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is known to the

family of the victim and taking advantage of the same, the petitioner kidnapped the victim girl and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her and also threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the above case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the victim girl’s mother was running a provisional shop and sold the adulterate products, which was questioned by the petitioner. In furtherance thereof, the de-facto complainant gave a false complaint by using her minor child. He would further submit that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.09.2025 and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing for the respondent Police strongly opposed the bail petition on the ground that the victim girl is aged about 6 years old and that the allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail

5. On going through the 183 of BNSS statement produced by the learned

Government Advocate, it is seen that, there is a serious allegation made against the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very complaint is a motivated one, the same cannot be gone into at this stage while considering the bail application. Hence, taking into consideration of the severity of the allegation and the sexual assault suffered by the victim at the hands of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would jeopardize the prosecution and cause mental trauma to the victim girl. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. mp To 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

mp Crl.OP.No.7994 of 2026

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Karventhan vs The State Rep by Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan