Stalin v. The State Rep By Its, The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.05.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

1. Stalin ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.14289 of 2025/ A1

2. Krishnan ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.14336 of 2025/ A2 Vs.

The State Rep. By, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police, Villupuram.

(Crime No.06/2025/AC/VPM) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in connection with Crime No.06/2025/AC/VPM, pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.14289 : Mr. A. Murugavel For Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.14336 : Mr. D. Arunkumar For Respondent : Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ****** 1/6

O R D E R

Petitions seeking bail in respect of Crime No.06/2025/AC/VPM registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 @ 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 and Section 49 of BNS, is on board for consideration.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 are Government staff, who are working as a Surveyor in Villupuram Taluk Office and Village Assistant in Nariyur Village, respectively and based on the instigation of A1, A2 demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.3,000/- from the defacto complainant for mutation of patta of a land, which belongs to the defacto complainant's brother in law. Hence, this case.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent, they have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution; that the petitioners have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 2/6

23.04.2025. He further submitted that the mutation of patta is the subject matter of the VAO and Zonal Tahsildhar, who is the authorized official to make online entries; that the petitioners are no way connected with the said subject and have power to mutate the patta and further they have not demanded any money from the defacto complainant. He also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate for the investigation and prayed for bail to the petitioners.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and on instruction submitted that A2 assisted A1 to demand and accept Rs.3,000/- from the defacto complainant; that both A1 and A2 were suspended from the service; and that the investigation is pending and opposed the bail to the petitioners. 5.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation against the petitioners, the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, 3/6

the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail with the following conditions:

(1) The petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Villupuram;

(2) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(3) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity;

(4) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

(5) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses;

(6) The petitioners to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;

4/6

(7) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions are imposed by themselves as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283].

(8) If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

15.05.2025 ari/ stn Note:-

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the official website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in official website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To

1. The Special Judge, Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Villupuram.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police, Villupuram.

(Crime No.06/2025/AC/VPM) 5/6

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

ari/ stn

3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Vedampattu, Villupuram District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

15.05.2025 6/6