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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.26314 of 2025

1. Arunkumar

2. M.Shyam

3. S.Saravanakumar ... Petitioners -vsState Rep by, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai.

(Crime No.RC032 2025A0017 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.RC032 2025A0017 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners :

Mr.R.Vivekananthan For Respondent :

Ms.G.Vrinda for Mr.K.Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate Spl. PP (CBI) ********** 1/6

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 61(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 7, 8, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (As Amended in 2018), in Crime No.RC032 2025A0017 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against these petitioners is that, these petitioners are the private company owners and they approached the A1 for the purpose of getting some license and come forward to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as a bribe and accordingly it was came to the knowledge of the Vigilance Department and consequently the FIR was also registered in this matter and while the A5 handing over the money to A1 they were got red handed and A1 an A5 were arrested. On the statement recorded from A5 it revealed that these petitioners are also involved in the offences. Hence this case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that these petitioners are the private contractors and it is alleged that A5 has come forward 2/6

to paid the money on behalf of the petitioner already the arrested accused is released on bail, they have also appeared before the respondent police and also given the voice samples and co-operated with the investigation. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent would submit that the investigation in this case is in a preliminary stage, petitioners are the main persons who are come forward to bribe the A1 for the purpose of getting some license. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the submissions made on both sides and on perusal of records, since the arrested accused released on bail, the occurrence taken place on 21.08.2025 and it is also stated that the investigation is also reached final stage, and this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned District Sessions 3/6

Judge and Special Judge for PC Act cases, Puducherry, on condition that the petitioners 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for the period of four weeks and thereafter as and when requires for interrogation; (c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (d) the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail 4/6

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;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 19.11.2025 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 District Sessions Judge and Special Judge for PC Act Cases, Puducherry.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5/6

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

rna Crl.O.P.No.26314 of 2025 19.11.2025 6/6