S Veeraraj v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Perumalpuram
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15.12.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY S.Veeraraj ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.By, the Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.259 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.S.Palani Velayutham for Mr.K.Prabakaran for K.P.S.Law Associates For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj for respondent police Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Mr.Ka.Ramakrishnan for Intervenor Mr.J.Anand Kumar for Intervenor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.259 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
1/5
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 331, 217, 238, 241, 132 & 61(2) of BNS, in Crime No.259 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the on 17.11.2025, one Sathyamoorthy subordinate of defacto complainant locked he office after 6 O'Clock and handed over the key to one Mandiramoorthy and also it was informed to the defacto complainant. On 17.11.2025 at night hours the unknown persons entered into the office for accomplice work. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court. The petitioner is working as Assistant District Officer, Fire 2/5
and Rescue Service Station, Tirupur. On suspicious only the summon was served upon the petitioner. The Vigilance Officer, Tirunelveli Circle had got the information and conducted a raid in the office of the defacto complainant and seized some unaccounted cash from his office and registered a case against the defacto complainant and one other official. For counterblast the defacto complainant gave a complaint and on that basis some persons were arrested and recorded confessional statement. On the basis of the confessional statement the summon was issued to the petitioner. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he had informed about the said corruption to the Vigilance Department, Chennai, consequently, they informed to the Vigilance Department, Tirunelveli. Hence, she seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The accused 2 to 6 were arrested. The allegation against the petitioner is he is the master mind of the offence. This Court heard the counsels appearing for the intervenors also.
3/5
5. Considering the fact that the co-accused in this case have been arrested and it is alleged that the petitioner is the master mind of the offence and also considering the nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Further, it is seen that this is the modus operandi in several departments not to grant promotion to others. Such kind of activities cannot be allowed. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to dismiss the petition. 6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. (S S Y J) 15.12.2025 TM To
1. The Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.259 of 2025)
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
S.SRIMATHY,J TM
ORDER
IN 15.12.2025 5/5