Ramanathan v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 12340 of 2026 Ramanathan
...Petitioner
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.03 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand for Mr.S.Ashok Advocate For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 03 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.05.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 7(c) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 in Crime No.03 of 2026 on 1/6
the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant wanted to execute a sale deed in favour of his wife. Therefore, he approached the petitioner, who is the in-charge of the Sub-Registrar, Velipattinam. On 07.05.2026, initially the petitioner demanded Rs.50 lakhs. He has also given an account number of one Ayupkhan for depositing the same. As first payment Rs.3 lakhs has been deposited in the account of the petitioner, Rs.5 lakhs has been deposited in the account of accused No.2 and Rs.17 lakhs was directly handed over to him. For the remaining amount the defacto complainant expressed his inability and agreed to pay Rs.15 lakhs. In the said amount also a sum of Rs.3 lakhs has been directed to be paid to the accused No.2, who is the stamp vendor, having office near to the Sub Registrar Office.
Thereafter, since the defacto complainant is not interested to pay the remaining amount, he approached the respondent police and lodged a complaint, which resulted in the registration of the FIR and trap proceedings, in which the accused No.2 received tainted notes for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not 2/6
committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The alleged transaction is not imaginable one. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. Records are available for the bank transaction. The petitioner is involved in illegal ratification for the registration of the property of the defacto complainant. He has also engaged the accused No.2, who is the stamp vendor. The petitioner has three previous cases. Investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of 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, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, the FIR has been registered on 21.05.2026 and the petitioner is in custody from 22.05.2026, by this time material part of the investigation might to have been completed, even according to the prosecution all the offences are born out of records, thereby no scope to tamper the evidence, though the petitioner has 3/6
three previous cases, in all those cases he was already granted bail and considering the period of incarceration undergone 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 for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, 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/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she 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 4/6
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 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.
(P D B J) 25.06.2026 TM To 1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.03 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, District Prison, Ramanathapuram. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL, J.
TM
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12340 of 2026 Date : 25.06.2026 6/6