High CourtsSingle Bench

Jayakumar vs State

Madras High Court · Decided on 13 November 2025 · Citation: (2025) 11 MAD CK 1955

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7(9), 8(b) · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 269
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Original Petition No. 31062 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 548 words

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

1.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.10.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7(9), 8(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amendment by Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, in Crime No.10 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.

The case of prosecution is that the petitioner is working as VAO for Kattur Village, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur Village and now the allegation is to transfer name in patta and delete the name of the defacto complainant's father and grand father in respect of SF No.490/3A, he was alleged to have demanded Rs.40,000/- from defacto complainant and accordingly the defacto complainant gave Rs.10,000/- and Rs.13,000/- on 30.09.2025 and 25.10.2025 respectively and to receive the remaining amount Rs.17,000/- on 30.10.2025, he was caught red handedly and was trapped and arrested on the same day. Hence this case.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested and he is in judicial custody from 30.10.2025 and ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that on 3 occasions he has received the amount totally Rs.40,000 and it was trapped, investigation is completed, he is suspended. Hence, he strongly opposes grant of bail to the petitioner.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances, and also the fact that the investigation is almost completed, and further considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6.

Accordingly the petitioner is directed to deposit a non refundable fund of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the Ramakrishna Math, No.31, Ramakrishna Math Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004, Punjab National bank, Account Number: 1511010123990, IFSC Code: PUNB0151120. On such deposit, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing separate bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties (one blood surety), for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, and on further conditions that:

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Tuesday at 10.30 a.m. for the period of three months;

(c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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]; and;

(h) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.