Swaminathan v. The State Rep By, The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Swaminathan S/o.Subramaniyan, 45/D, Annavasal Seniya Street, VTC Mannargudi. PO Mannargudi, Tiruvarur District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Tiruvarur District.

Crime No.01 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, To enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.1 of 2026 on the file of respondent police, pending investigation and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr. Swami Subramanian For Respondent(s):

Ms.R.S.Indira, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 2018 in Crime No.1 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein was working as a Block Development Officer and the defacto complainant applied for DTCP approval for the lay out formed by him before the office of the Petitioner herein. which led to the registration of an FIR. It is alleged in the complaint that on 25.03.2026 while the defacto complainant went to the office of the petitioner herein to know about the status of his application, at that time, the petitioner herein demanded Rs.7,000/- from the defacto complainant to process his application and approve his layout. Since the defacto complainant is not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police on 14.05.2026. based on which, FIR was registered and tray laying team was formed. Later, the petitioner herein has caught red handed and arrested by the respondent police and bribe amount was recovered from the desk of the petitioner herein. Thereafter the petitioner was released by the respondent police, because of his health condition. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested under Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 2018. However, the respondent police themselves have let him released on own bond due to his health condition . The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is suffering from Cancer and the petitioner is taking treatment for cancer and in this connection, he has also produced the medical records of the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police on instructions submits that due to the petitioner's health condition, the respondent police themselves have let him released on own bond. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

6. A perusal of the medical records shows that the petitioner has taken treatment at Vinodhagan Memorial Hospital (P) Ltd., at Thanjavur for cancer and hence considering the medical condition of the petitioner, this Court is

inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) 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 identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

05-06-2026 Vv To

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Tiruvarur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VV 05-06-2026