K. Sathyanarayanan v. The Deputy Director
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA K.Sathyanarayanan
...Petitioner(s)/Accused-6
Vs The Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai - 600 006.
(ECIR/07/2009) ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending trial in C.C.No.4 of 2014 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Abdul Saleem, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Prem Anand.
For Respondent(s):
Mr.P.Sidharthan Special Public Prosecutor (E.D)
ORDER
Petition seeking bail in respect of C.C.No.4 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in connection with RC No.4/E/2009-CBI/EOW/Chennai, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 120-B read with 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 201 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is on board for consideration.
2. Mr. Abdul Saleem, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner/A6 is facing trial in C.C. No. 4 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. He further submitted that the petitioner was all along appearing before the trial Court properly, and later, he was acquitted in the predicate offence, and that, on wrong advice that the present case will be automatically closed, the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court. Hence, the trial Court had issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest on 04.06.2025, and pursuant to the same, he was arrested on 17.03.2026. He would further submit that it was not intentional on the part of the petitioner to evade appearing before the trial Court, and only due to improper legal advice, he did not to appear before the trial Court. He also submitted that the petitioner had updated the present address, and he also undertakes to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.
3. Mr. P. Sidharthan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, while opposing the grant of bail, submitted that though the petitioner had been acquitted in the predicate offence, he failed to appear before
the trial Court in the present case. Consequently, the trial Court issued a nonbailable warrant of arrest on 04.06.2025, pursuant to which the petitioner was arrested on 17.03.2026. It was further submitted that since the petitioner had been absconding for about nine months, there was no progress in the trial, and he was subsequently secured and produced before the Court.
4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
5. Though there have been lapses on the part of the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner has been acquitted in the predicate offence. It is further noted that the petitioner has now furnished a proper address and has also expressed his willingness to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.
6. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions and accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties (out of whom, one surety should be either wife or daughter of the petitioner), each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, and on further
conditions that:
[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
[b] the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all working days at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
29.04.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order dpa
Note:
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order on the Official Website of this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded on Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order, when uploaded on the official website of this Court, will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
To 1.The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai. 2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal-II. 3.The Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai - 600 006.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.
dpa 29.04.2026