R.Sankar, M/40 Years, v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Sixth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P. N. PRAKASH CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.26759 of 2017 R.SHANKAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REP. BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DEPARTMENT OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION, ARIYALUR AND DISTRICT, CR.NO.1 OF 2017.

For Petitioner : M/S.B.KUMARASAMY Advocate For Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Ms.V. Sasikala, Inspector of Police, V & A.C, Ariyalur is present today.

2.

This is the third anticipatory bail application and the earlier anticipatory bail applications in Crl.O.P.No.15533 of 2017 and Crl.O.P.No.18803 of 2017 were dismissed by this Court by well considered order.

3. Mr.B. Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the accused would submit that the petitioner had already cleared the files of the defacto-complainant and 38 others as early as 21.07.2017 and therefore, it cannot be stated that he had demanded bribe amount from the defacto-complainant as contingent for clearing the bills in the future. He also submitted that the petitioner does not have the official authority to sanction the payment since payment have to be sanctioned by superior authority.

4.

The facts of the case even set out in paragraph No.2 of the order dated 07.08.2017 passed by this Court, which is as follows:

2. The petitioner is working as Overseer in the Panchayat Union Office, Aandimadam, Ariyalur District. The de facto complainant wanted to construct a toilet in his house under the Swachh Bharat Scheme, in which, the State Government would pay a subsidy for

construction of toilet. This petitioner demanded Rs.3,000/- as bribe from the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant informed the same to the Vigilance and AntiCorruption Department and a trap was laid to entrap the petitioner on 19.07.2017. When the trap team went to the office of the petitioner, he was not available in the office. When the de facto complainant contacted the petitioner, the petitioner told the de facto complainant to hand over the bribe money to Rathnasigmani, his colleague.

On instructions of the petitioner, the bribe money was handed over to Rathnasigamani and on the signal given by the de facto complainant, Rathnasigamani was caught redhanded. 5.

For attracting the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, it is not necessary as to whether the public servant was capable of performing the promised job. In other words, if a peon in an Office accepts bribe on the promise of getting a job to the applicant for higher post, yet, provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act would stand attracted. Just because the file was cleared at an anterior point of time, it cannot lead to inference that there was no demand by the petitioner. What had transpired at the time of laying of the trap has been set out in the mahazar that was prepared contemporaneously.

6. In such view of the matter, anticipatory bail to the petitioner cannot be granted in facts and circumstances of the case. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. -sd/- 06/12/2017 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DEPARTMENT OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION, ARIYALUR AND DISTRICT.

+1CC to M/S.B.KUMARASAMY Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.22147 CRL OP.26759/2017 Date :06/12/2017 MK:12/12/2017