Muthulakshmi vs State

K. Rajasekar, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, in Crime No.11 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The allegation against this petitioner is that, while she was working as an Village Administrative Officer and demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- for the purpose of doing some revenue records services. Hence the defacto complainant lodge the complaint with the respondent police and accordingly the trap was laid and after the petitioner received money the phenolphthalein test was conducted and found to be positive. Hence she was arrested.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.11.2025; and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and sought for bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is the single accused and the petitioner was arrested on 10.11.2025 and investigation is pending in this case and opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Considering the nature of the allegation that the petitioner being a lady and she has arrested in custody and she has also been suspended from service, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, and on further conditions that:-

[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 daily at 10:30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation by the respondent police ;

[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 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];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.