P.Ramesh v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.10.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA P.Ramesh ... Petitioner Vs.

State Represented by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Branch, Namakkal District.

Crime No.2/AC/2022 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to pleased to grant the bail to the petitioner/accused in Crime No.2/AC/2022 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Kumanan For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/7

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.09.2022, for the offences punishable under Section 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in Crime No.2/AC/2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Annadurai, who is the hereditary Poojari of the temple is that the petitioner, who is the Assistant Commissioner of HR&CE Department has demanded monthly mamool from them. Based on the complaint, a trap was laid and the petitioner was arrested while receiving bribe amount. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and since, the petitioner had questioned the defacto complainant's illegal activities, a false complaint has been given and a trap was laid. He would also submit that the major part of the investigation is over and the petitioner is in custody from 28.09.2022. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

2/7

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner, who is the Assistant Commissioner of HR&CE Department had demanded monthly mamool from the hereditary Poojaris. Pursuant to that, based on the complaint given by one of the Poojaris, a trap was laid and the petitioner and the other accused, who is the Executive Officer were arrested while receiving the bribe. He would further submit that a house search also conducted and an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- has also been recovered. Therefore, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in custody for more than 20 days and the respondent has not taken police custody of the petitioner and further custody of the petitioner may not be required. He would further submit that other than the defacto complainant, all other witnesses are official witnesses. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. 3/7

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record..

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel and also the petitioner is in custody from 28.09.2022, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

8. 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) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal District, 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 report before the 4/7

respondent police, daily 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 petitioner 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

17.10.2022 rgi 5/7

To

1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal District

2. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Branch, Namakkal District.

3. The Central Prison, Salem District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

6/7

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.

rgi Crl.O.P.No. 25068 of 2022 17.10.2022 7/7