Murugan Vs State represented by

Murugan vs State represented by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Apr 29, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1442723

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/1442723
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice a.D.Jagadish Chandira
Decided On: Apr 29, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/10948/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Murugan

Respondent

State represented by

Excerpt

.....nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with crime no.03 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. for petitioner: mr.s.sasikumar for respondent: mr.s.vinoth kumar govt advocate (crl.side)orderpetition seeking bail in respect of crime no.03 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under sections 5(1)(j)(ii) read with section 6(1) of pocso act, 2012, is on board for consideration. page1 of 42. the learned counsel for the petitioner, pleading innocence on the partof the petitioner, who has been in incarceration since 09.02.2026 and false implication in the case, seeks indulgence of this court. he further submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.3. the case of the prosecution as put forth by the learned governmentadvocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police, opposing for grant of bail is that the petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl, who is aged about 14 years. he further submits that though the learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner is a senior citizen, the offence alleged against the petitioner is not simple but a heinous offence of penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim girl and the investigation also is still pending.4. having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedgovernment advocate (criminal side) for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.5. accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed for the present. mp page2 of 4 to:1. the judicial magistrate court, harur.2. the inspector of police, harur all women police station,3. the public prosecutor high court of madras page3 of 4 a.d.jagadish chandira j. mp page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Murugan, S/o.Perumal ..Petitioner Vs State represented. by The Inspector of Police, Harur All Women Police Station, (Crime No.03 of 2026) ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No.03 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr.S.Sasikumar For Respondent: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Govt Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

Petition seeking bail in respect of Crime No.03 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 5(1)(j)(ii) read with Section 6(1) of POCSO Act, 2012, is on board for consideration. Page1 of 4

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, pleading innocence on the part

of the petitioner, who has been in incarceration since 09.02.2026 and false implication in the case, seeks indulgence of this Court. He further submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

3. The case of the prosecution as put forth by the learned Government

Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, opposing for grant of bail is that the petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl, who is aged about 14 years. He further submits that though the learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner is a senior citizen, the offence alleged against the petitioner is not simple but a heinous offence of penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim girl and the investigation also is still pending.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed for the present. mp Page2 of 4 To:

1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Harur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Harur All Women Police Station,

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Page3 of 4 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J. mp Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Murugan vs State represented by Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice a.D.Jagadish Chandira