S.Vinayagavel v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 15/12/2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA in CRL A(MD)No.1347 of 2025 S.Vinayagavel ... Petitioner Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy District.

Crime No.14/2011.

... Respondent PRAYER :- To Suspend the sentence and enlarge the petitioner on bail imposed on the appellant by the judgment dated 28.11.2025 made in Spl CC No.25/2013 on the file of Special Judge for Prevention of Anti Corruption Cases, Trichy and thus render justice. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Althaf Sheriff For M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor 1/7

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed to suspend the sentence and enlarge the petitioner on bail imposed on the appellant by the judgment dated 28.11.2025, in Spl CC No.25 of 2013 on the file of Special Judge for Prevention of Anti Corruption Cases, Trichy pending disposal of the above criminal appeal.

2. The petitioner has already filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.560 of 2025 before the Special Court for Trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Trichy and the Trial Court granted interim suspension of sentence to the petitioner till 29.12.2025 on condition that the petitioner shall produce two sureties for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and the sureties shall execute bonds for the said amount.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant went to Arulmigu Nallandar Vagaiyara Kovil, Manapari Taluk, where the petitioner was working as Exectuive Officer, for doing barbering service, at that time, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.700/- (Rupees seven Hundred only) as bribe. Thereafter, defacto complainant gave a 2/7

complaint against the petitioner and the case was registered against the petitioner by the respondent police in Crime No.14 of 2011. After completion of investigation formalities, final report was filed before the concerned Court for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the final report was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.25 of 2013.

4. Before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, 10 witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and 13 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. Three materials objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.3. On the side of the accused no witness was examined and two documents were marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.

5. The learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli District, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments on both the sides, has passed the impugned judgment dated 28.11.2025 by convicting the petitioner as follows :

3/7

Offences Sentence Fine In default Sentence Sec. 7 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 2 years rigorous imprisonment Rs.1,000/- 3 months Simple imprisonment 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2 years rigorous imprisonment Rs.1,000/- 3 months Simple imprisonment Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Appeal along with the above Miscellaneous Petition seeking suspension of sentence.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are several infirmities in the prosecution case and further there are contradictions in material particulars between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that the trial Court suspended the sentence till 29.12.2025.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that there are enough materials available on record against the petitioner and hence, he strongly opposed to grant suspension of sentence.

4/7

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out certain incongruities and inconsistencies in this case and also certain contradictions in material particulars. The fact remains that there are arguable points involved in this criminal appeal and further the criminal appeal is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future and as such, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner herein is entitled to the relief of grant of suspension of sentence.

10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended pending disposal of the appeal with the following directions:- (i) The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trichy. 5/7

(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity; and (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court once in a month i.e., on the first working day of every English calendar month at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

15.12.2025 Sn TO 1.The Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the prevention of Corruption Act, Thiruchirappalli District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy District.

3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trichy.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

6/7

N.MALA,J Sn CRL MP(MD) No.19942 of 2025 15/12/2025 7/7