Deepak @ Deepak Jothi v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Deepak @ Deepak Jothi ..Petitioner Vs The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, V & AC Cases, Salem. (Crime No.4/AC/2026) ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in respect of Cr.No.4/AC/2026 on the file of respondent police. For Petitioner:

Mr.N.U.Pressanna For Respondent:

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.05.2026 for the alleged offences under Section 7(a) and 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 in Crime.No.4/AC/2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and her business partner approached the Electricity Board Office for conversion of a temporary electricity service connection into a permanent connection. It is alleged that the petitioner/A2 collected Rs.2,500/- as application charges and thereafter demanded money on behalf of A1, the Zonal Engineer, for effecting the service connection. Since the defacto complainant was unwilling to pay the alleged illegal gratification, a complaint was lodged.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only a civil contractor and has nothing to do with the Electricity Board or its officials. It is further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that he was remanded to judicial custody on 13.05.2026. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the defacto complainant and her business partner approached the Electricity Board Office for conversion of a temporary electricity service connection into a permanent connection. It is alleged that the petitioner/A2 collected Rs.2,500/- as application charges and thereafter demanded money on behalf of A1, the Zonal Engineer, for effecting the service connection. Therefore, he opposed to grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6.This Court is of the view that the allegation against the petitioner is that he received the amount in connection with the change of electricity service connection on behalf of A1. The petitioner has been in custody since 13.05.2026. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations and the fact that the investigation in respect of the occurrence might have completed by this time, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem, and subject to the following conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as

and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

05-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order NSL 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 the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem.

2. Central Prison, Salem.

3. The Inspector of Police, V & AC Cases, Salem.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 05-06-2026