CRL MP(MD) NO. 9790 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11-08-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.KARTHIKEYAN Crl.M.P(MD) No.9790 of 2026 in Crl.A(MD) No.1233 of 2025 Pandi Petitioner Vs The State of Tamilnadu Represented by the Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.50 of 2020) Respondent For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Venkatesan For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Ganeshkumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Prayer: To suspend the substantive sentence and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal before this Court against the judgment in S.C.No.34 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court of Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Dindigul, dated 31.07.2025 on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit. ORDER The petitioner has moved the present application before this Court seeking suspension of the sentence imposed on him by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Dindigul, in S.C.No.34 of 2023, dated 31.07.2025, and to enlarge him on bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence of PW1/victim has not been corroborated by the medical evidence. Apart from that, the victim was taken to the house of the petitioner/appellant when other persons were available and at that time, nobody had raised any alarm. It is further submitted that the victim had damaged the cellphone of the petitioner and when the petitioner questioned her about the same, he was falsely implicated in the present case. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for suspension of the sentence imposed on the petitioner and to enlarge him on bail. 3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the evidence of PW1 is natural and has been duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The medical examination was conducted immediately after the occurrence, which completely corroborates the version of PW1. The evidence of PW1 was also corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses, including PW3. The Trial Court, after full-fledged trial, convicted the petitioner/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced him to undergo five years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months of simple imprisonment.

4. Considering the serious nature of the allegations and the materials available against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant suspension of the sentence imposed on the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. 11-08-2026 Indu To The Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL MP(MD) NO. 9790 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11-08-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.KARTHIKEYAN Crl.M.P(MD) No.9790 of 2026 in Crl.A(MD) No.1233 of 2025 Pandi Petitioner Vs The State of Tamilnadu Represented by the Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.50 of 2020) Respondent For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Venkatesan For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Ganeshkumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Prayer: To suspend the substantive sentence and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal before this Court against the judgment in S.C.No.34 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court of Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Dindigul, dated 31.07.2025 on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit. ORDER The petitioner has moved the present application before this Court seeking suspension of the sentence imposed on him by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Dindigul, in S.C.No.34 of 2023, dated 31.07.2025, and to enlarge him on bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence of PW1/victim has not been corroborated by the medical evidence. Apart from that, the victim was taken to the house of the petitioner/appellant when other persons were available and at that time, nobody had raised any alarm. It is further submitted that the victim had damaged the cellphone of the petitioner and when the petitioner questioned her about the same, he was falsely implicated in the present case. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for suspension of the sentence imposed on the petitioner and to enlarge him on bail. 3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the evidence of PW1 is natural and has been duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The medical examination was conducted immediately after the occurrence, which completely corroborates the version of PW1. The evidence of PW1 was also corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses, including PW3. The Trial Court, after full-fledged trial, convicted the petitioner/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced him to undergo five years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months of simple imprisonment.

4. Considering the serious nature of the allegations and the materials available against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant suspension of the sentence imposed on the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. 11-08-2026 Indu To The Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis