AI Structured Summary
8-section analysis generated from the full judgment text · gpt-4o-mini
The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. He is accused of demanding and receiving a bribe of Rs.30,000 while working as the Joint Sub-Registrar, Namakkal. The petitioner's counsel claimed his innocence and mentioned that co-accused have been granted bail. The Government Advocate opposed the bail but acknowledged the completion of the investigation and the absence of prior offences.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 479 wordsC.Kumarappan, J
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.05.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 7(a) r/w Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, in Crime No.3/AC/2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, who was working as the Joint Sub-Registrar, Namakkal, along with the other accused, demanded and received a bribe of Rs.30,000/-. Hence, the case.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 11.06.2026 passed in Crl.O.P.No.14701 of 2026, which fact was not seriously disputed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side). Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that the investigation has been completed and that the petitioner has no bad antecedents.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the fact that the investigation has been completed, the absence of any bad antecedents on the part of the petitioner, and also the fact that the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.
Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, 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. until further orders;
[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 petitioner 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