Prema vs State

K.Rajasekar, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.11.2025 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 109, 201, 420, 468, 477(A) of IPC r/w 34 of IPC read with Sections 13(2), 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act in Crime No.08 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that during the tenure of the petitioner as Block Development Officer at Karaikal, the scheme named Swatch Bharat Mission was launched in her jurisdictional areas for the IHHLS Work, for which, the Central Government and the State Government had contributed Rs.12,000/- and Rs.8,000/- respectively for a total of Rs.20,000/-. The total number of IHHLS allotted to Karaikal Block is 10,592 out of that, 7,351 latrines were completed and the amount was distributed to the beneficiaries. The total amount paid to the beneficiaries after completion of work is Rs.3,04,95,000/- but Rs,38,375,500/- was disbursed and consequently, there was an misappropriation of funds to the extent of Rs.78,80,500/-. It is also further alleged that the petitioner separately collected a sum of Rs.13 lakhs from the contractor, apart from the total excess payment made to the tune of Rs.27.26 lakhs. Hence, a complaint was lodged and the petitioner was arrested.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 18.11.2025 and that she is a lady. Though it is alleged that the cheques were handed over to the petitioner, she had only verified the same and made payments in accordance with the instructions of her superior officers. He further submitted that the petitioner has not benefitted from any of the transaction. He further submitted that the petitioner is willing to deposit one-third of the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by her. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Learned Public Prosecutor, Puducherry appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that one of the contractors, who allegedly received excess payment to the tune of Rs.27.26 lakhs namely Karnan, has categorically stated that the petitioner separately received Rs.13 lakhs for the construction of her house. He further submitted that the same has been investigated by the respondent and that the total amount involved in this case is Rs.78 lakhs. Hence, he opposes to grant bail to the petitioner.

On perusal of the FIR and other connected materials, it is seen that the petitioner is alleged to have made excess payments of huge amounts to various contractors. It is also specifically alleged that the petitioner paid an excess amount of Rs.27.26 lakhs to one Karnan and that she received a sum of Rs.13 lakhs for the construction of her house.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the nature of the allegations and the willingness expressed by the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.13 lakhs to the credit of Crime No.08 of 2025, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) to the credit of Crime Number 08 of 2025 and on such deposit and on receipt of proof of payment, 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, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Karaikal, and on further conditions that:-

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate 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.