Ayub Khan v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Ayub Khan
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep .by The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Wing, Ramanathapuram District (Crime No. 3 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Intervenor : Mr.S.Vidhya Sagar For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No.3 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/7
The petitioner / A2, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 in Crime No.3 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant approached Al on 07.,05.2026 for registration of a sale deed pertaining to the property situated at Kuyavangudi Village, pursuant to a General Power of Attorney executed by his father in favour of his mother. At that time the Al allegedly demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50 Lakhs for registration of the document and directed the defacto complainant to make payments through this petitioner/A2 who is running a private individual running a document writing office. Thereafter, this accused allegedly instructed the complainant to pay an initial of Rs.25 Lakhs. Upon such compulsion, the defacto complainant allegedly transferred a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs through bank account. Thereafter on 18.05.2026, the defacto complainant allegedly Rs.5 Lakhs to the ESAF bank account of A2 and handed over Rs.17 Lakhs in cash to him, thereby completing the payment of the initial installment amount of Rs.25 Lakhs. When the defacto complainant requested registration of the document on 20.05.2026, Al reduced a sum of Rs.10 2/7
Lakhs from the balance amount and demanded a further sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs despite having already received the initial installment of Rs.25 Lakhs, thereby making the total illegal gratification amount to Rs.40 Lakhs. Al further instructed the defacto complainant to arrange the balance amount of Rs.12 Lakhs through another bank account. During the trap proceedings on 21.05.2026 the defacto complainant and official witness approached A2 at his office as instructed by Al. Upon demand made by Al, the defacto complainant handed over tainted currency notes amounting to Rs.3 Lakhs, which received A2, counted, and kept in the office drawer. Thereafter, A2 provided bank account details for remittance of the remaining Rs.12 Lakhs as per instructions of Al. On the same day at about 15.00 hours both accused Al and A2 were apprehended by the police and the case was registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police has registered a false case against the petitioner and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.05.2026. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 3/7
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that it is a case of trap and investigation is in initial stage and the bribe amount involved in this case is huge. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and considering the nature of offences and the offences are borne out of records and even according to the case of prosecution the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was deposited to the credit of the petitioner but the said amount has not been withdrawn and also the fact that no previous case is pending against the petitioner and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each 4/7
for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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].
5/7
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.
(P D B J) 09.06.2026 aav To 1.The Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram 2.The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Wing, Ramanathapuram District
3. The Superintendent, District Prison, Ramanathapuram 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J aav
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10110 of 2026 Date : 09.06.2026 7/7