High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohan vs State

Madras High Court · Decided on 15 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 MAD CK 1394

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.Kumarappan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7(b), 12 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 269
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Original Petition No. 9219 Of 2026
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

14 paragraphs · 554 words

C.Kumarappan, J

1.The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.03.2026 for the alleged offences under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in Crime No.03 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, being a public servant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- from the defacto complainant for providing water connection and the amount was received through another accused. Hence, the case was registered.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not demanded or accepted any illegal gratification. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner has been serving as a government official for several years and has no bad antecedents. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner demanded and accepted illegal gratification through co-accused. However, it is submitted that the investigation has been completed and the co-accused has already been released on bail in Crl.O.P.No.7950 of 2026 dated 30.03.2026.

5.

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6.

Considering the submission of the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the investigation has been completed and the co-accused has already been released on bail in Crl.O.P.No.7950 of 2026 dated 30.03.2026. Considering the above position and the fact that further incarceration of the petitioner is not required, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

7.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore, and subject to the following conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. for a period of 15 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.