Ramesh Kumar v. The State Rep By Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.24042 of 2025 Ramesh Kumar ... Petitioner -vsThe State rep by, The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Coimbatore.
(Crime No.15 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Crime No.15 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Velmurugan For Respondent :
Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ************ 1/6
ORDER
The Petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.07.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, in Crime No.15 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of prosecution is that the defacto complainant being a Liaison Officer, was said to working under Mr.Palanisamy, who is said to have applied for the solvency certificate on 19.06.2025 vide application no. is TN1720250619106. In the regular procedure, the application is to be passed from the hands of the VAO, then to the Revenue Inspector, Head Quarter Deputy Tahsildar and then the present petitioner has to issue the certificate. That in the course of the said transaction it is alleged that on 21.07.2025, the petitioner is said to have informed the defacto complainant that the issuance of solvency certificate is temporarily stopped on Government policy, except for those who had applied online and it is said that the petitioner demanded bribe for himself a sum of Rs.50,000/- and if not given he would reject and it was said that the petitioner called asking if the illegal gratitude was ready and the defacto complainant negotiated for Rs.5000/- to Rs.10000/- which was said that they would reject if failed to 2/6
pay Rs.50,000/- and the defacto complainant unable to tolerate the demand of bribe by the Government Officer, bound to do the work. Hence this case.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioner. He would also submit that the investigation is almost completed and if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility of the petitioner hampering the investigation and tampering the witnesses. However, he vehemently opposes grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, and also the fact that the investigation is almost completed, and further considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing separate bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties (one blood surety), for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, and on 3/6
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 respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for the period of eight weeks;
(c) the Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d) the Petitioner shall not abscond 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]; and;
4/6
(h) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
10.09.2025 rna 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 learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 5/6
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rna Crl.O.P.No.24042 of 2025 10.09.2025 6/6