Madras HC Grants Bail To Children’s Home Counsellor Accused Of Failing To Report Child’s Sexual Assault, Citing Health And Limited Role

In brief

The question

Whether the appellant should be enlarged on bail pending trial, having regard to her alleged role, medical condition, and period of custody.

The court held

The Court allowed the appeal and ordered the appellant’s release on bail upon executing a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of POCSO Cases, Madurai.

It also directed

The sureties were required to provide photographs and left thumb impressions, and the trial court could obtain identity documents.

The appellant was directed to report to the respondent police daily at 10:30 a.m. until further orders; breach of a condition could lead the police to seek cancellation of bail before the trial court.

01Facts

The appellant, Accused No. 4, worked as a psychologist/counsellor at a children’s home.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3, 5–6

The prosecution alleged that, after a child resident disclosed a sexual assault by Accused No. 1, the appellant failed to report it to the competent authority or police.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3, 5–6

She was charged under Sections 5(l) read with 6, 9(p), and 16 read with 17 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3, 5–6

The appellant had been in custody since 23 July 2026; the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, but trial had not commenced.

p. 2 · ¶ 2 · p. 3 · ¶ 3

The Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of POCSO Cases, Madurai, denied bail on 31 August 2026. The appellant challenged that order under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, relying on her age and medical condition, including an enlarged uterus with a fundal fibroid.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2

02Issues

i.Whether the appellant should be enlarged on bail pending trial, having regard to her alleged role, medical condition, and period of custody.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 2–7

ii.Whether bail conditions were necessary to address the prosecution’s concern that the appellant might intimidate the victim or other witnesses.

p. 3 · ¶ 3, 7–8

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which provides for an appeal against an order granting or refusing bail under the Act.

p. 1, prayer

The alleged offences arose under Sections 5(l) read with 6, 9(p), and 16 read with 17 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

The Court cited P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, AIR 2005 SC 100, in directing that the police may seek cancellation of bail for breach of the imposed conditions.

p. 5, condition (iv)

The judgment states no further general test for bail.

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 5 Section 6 Section 9 Section 16 Section 17

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court considered the seriousness of the allegations and the State’s concern about possible intimidation of the victim and witnesses, but weighed those matters against the appellant’s medical condition and her limited role as a psychologist/counsellor.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3, 5–7

It also noted the allegation that she failed to report the assault despite knowing of it.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

On that basis, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail, subject to a daily police-reporting requirement and other conditions.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 7–8