Dhanasekaran v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

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

09.02.2026 for the alleged offence under Section 7(a) r/w 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption Page2 of 6 (Amendment) Act, 2018 in Crime No.28 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, an Accountant in Rufi Real Estates and Investments Pvt. Ltd., stated that while filing the GST return for 2023, the tax liability was mistakenly shown as Rs.13,80,868/- instead of Rs.2,24,118/-, and a requisition was later sent on

05.12.2025 to reverse the excess claim. Further alleged that A1, then working as Assistant Commissioner, demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as undue advantage for closing the file, which was later reduced to Rs.60,000/- during discussions held on 04.02.2026, and reiterated on 05.02.2026. On 09.02.2026, a trap was organised, and as per the instructions of A1, the complainant handed over Rs.60,000/- to A2, her husband, near Jennys Residency, Coimbatore and A2 received the amount inside his car in the presence of an official witness, and the Phenolphthalein test conducted thereafter yielded positive results. Hence, this case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that co-accused was already released on bail and the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner Page3 of 6

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that totally there are two accused, that A1 is a Government employee and this petitioner is the husband of A1 and this case has been filed against the accused for the demand of Rs.60,000/- as illegal gratification for closing the file. However, he fairly submits that A1 was already released on bail.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), it is seen that the co-accused, who is a Government employee, has already been released on bail by this Court vide order passed in Crl.O.P. No.5324 of 2026 dated 03.03.2026. This petitioner is the husband of 1st accused and he is not a Government employee. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioner only assisted his wife in getting the bribe amount. Therefore, this Court would like to give parity to the petitioner in line with the order passed in Crl. O.P. No.5324 of 2026.

¶7In such view of the position, taking into consideration the long incarceration of the petitioner since 09.02.2026 and also considering the fact that the co-accused was already released on bail, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following stringent conditions: Page4 of 6

¶7Accordingly, 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 each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore 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 8 weeks and thereafter as and when required by the respondent police 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 pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283]: Page5 of 6 [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 09-03-2026 MJS Note:

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

¶2All 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. To

¶1The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

¶2The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Coimbatore.

¶3The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶4The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o6050oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. MJS CRLoOPoNo.o6050oofo2026 09-03-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Dhanasekaran S/o Pavanan, No.23, Samiyarthottam, Maniampalayam, Kavandapadi, Erode. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State represented by: The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Coimbatore. [Crime No.2/2026/AC/CB] ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. praying to enlarge the petitioner of bail pending investigation in Crime NO.02 of 2026/AC/CB on the file of respondent police. For Petitioner(s): M/s. Agilesh Kumar S. For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal side)