M.Venkatachalam v. The Deputy Superintendent Of

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Thirteenth day of July Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.12827 of 2015 M.VENKATACHALAM ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION WING, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.5/2015) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.B.JAMEEL ARASU Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.V.RAJARAJAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.5 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13

(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.07.2015. He has come forward with this petition seeking bail.

2.According to the defacto complainant, namely, Navaneethakrishnan, on 01.07.2015, the accused, who was functioning as Tahsildar had demanded Rs.5,000/- to quarry the sand from his patta land in S.No.53 in Kovilur Devasthanam Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District and the same was informed to the respondent and on 03.07.2015, he received the amount. 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had conducted a raid for illegal quarrying in the month of September 2014 and also seized a tractor and a tipper lorry and at the instigation of the sand smugglers, this complaint was given. It is further submitted that the amount was not recovered from the person and he was not available in his seat and the amount was dropped in his drawer. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), opposed the bail application, by stating that the investigation is not yet completed and the accused is an influential person in the locality and he will tamper the witnesses.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily twice at 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m. until further orders. sd/- 13/07/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKKOTTAI. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY 4 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION WING, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S.B.JAMEEL ARASU Advocate SR.No. 38022. TS/ 13.07.2015/2P - 6C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.12827 of 2015 Date :13/07/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/