Pon Vasanth v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Date : 16.09.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.15422 of 2025 Pon Vasanth ... Petitioner Vs.
State Represented through, The Inspector of Police, CCB, Madurai City, (Crime No.27 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthikeyan Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Kishore Kumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Criminal Procedure Code. PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 27 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police. ORDER: The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.17, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.08.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 466, 468, 477A of I.P.C. and Sections 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act 2007 in Crime No.27 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks 1/6
bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that there are some irregularities in the records relating to collection of building tax from the owners of 150 buildings without following the procedures and without calculations of the tax amount properly as per rules by the employees, including Bill Collector, Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Contractors working in Madurai Municipal Corporation in some wards, etc. and the tax amount was collected lesser than the amount fixed by rules and thereby they caused loss of Rs.1.5 crores/- to the Municipal Corporation. The alleged irregularity was committed between the period 01-04-2022 to 31-07-2024 and it is alleged that the taxes were reduced without proper authorization and property taxes were entered into the UTIS. Hence, the above said loss to the Municipal Corporation has occurred. Hence, this case.
3. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that several co-accused were granted bail, that the petitioner was implicated falsely based on the confession of the co-accused namely Suresh Kumar and Kannan, that no records were available, that the petitioner was already interrogated by the respondent police, that is an innocent person and he has not 2/6
committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. However, he has been arrested and he is languishing in jail from 12.08.2025. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police opposed for grant of bail on the ground that the investigation is still pending and if he is released on bail, the investigation would be affected. Further, the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, has dismissed the bail petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.3931 of 2025, vide order, dated 10.09.2025.
5. After hearing the rival submissions this Court had given its anxious consideration. The petitioner herein is the husband of the Mayor of Madurai Corporation. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has directly involved in reducing the property tax for the Jayasakthi Building. Further there are WhatsApp calls from the petitioner's mobile number to some of the owners of the commercial building. Hence prima facie gives an indication that the petitioner may be involved in reduction of property tax for commercial buildings and the siphoned the said money for his personal gains. Further certain records are not available in the Madurai Corporation hence the 3/6
prosecution had sought the files from the Commissioner of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department. Even though the petitioner is under custody, the petitioner was in Jail Hospital and has not cooperated with the investigation. Hence custodial interrogation may be necessary in the case of the petitioner. Further the petitioner being the husband of the Mayor the petitioner may indulge in tampering of documents and witnesses.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the specific overt act against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly the bail application is dismissed.
7. This Court is inclined to record, that it is a classic case of misusing the 33% reservation granted to women. The Mayor is a woman but the petitioner being the husband of the Mayor has acted as "extra constitutional authority" and seems to have indulged in manipulating the documents. By holding such "shadow post" the husbands of the elected members are misusing the post in several local bodies, which is a menace.
16.09.2025 TMG 4/6
TO
1. Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.
2.Central Prison, Madurai.
3.The Inspector of Police, CCB, Madurai City, 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
S.SRIMATHY,J TMG
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.15422 of 2025 Date : 16.09.2025 6/6