Dharmaraj vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police on 7 May, 2026

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         DATED : 07.05.2026

                                                              CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

                                                   Crl.O.P.No.11917 of 2026

                   Dharmaraj                                                        ... Petitioner(s)

                                                                Vs.


                   The State rep. by
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   Vigilance & Anti-corruption,
                   Coimbatore.                                                ... Respondent(s)
                   Crime No.04/ 2026/AC/CB

                   PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
                   to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.04/2026/AC/CB on the
                   file of the respondent.

                                     For Petitioner(s)          : Mr.C.S.Jeeva Kuralamudhu

                                     For Respondent(s)          : Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana,
                                                                  Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                              ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

17.04.2026 for the alleged offences under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 in Crime No.04/2026/AC/CB on the file of the

respondent, seeks bail.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is working as a

Bill Collector in the North Zone of the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, had

demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the de facto complainant as bribe for

handing over the property tax book pertaining to the de facto complainant’s

house and shops. Hence, the case.

3. 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 petitioner has been in custody since 17.04.2026 and is ready to abide by

any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed

for the grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondent, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the

prosecution case and submitted that the currency notes have been seized from

the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government

Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials

available on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of

allegations and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this

Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with

two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge

for Vigilance and Anti Corruption cum Principal District Judge, 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. 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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.

07.05.2026 dpa/stn

Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

1. The learned Special Judge for Vigilance and Anti Corruption cum Principal District Judge, Coimbatore

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

3. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-corruption, Coimbatore.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

dpa/stn

07.05.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis