S Radhika v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 7(a), 12 read with 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in Crime No.02 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 6

¶2The case of the prosecution is that based on credible source information alleging demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in the office of the Sub-Registrar, the officials of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing conducted a surprise inspection. During the course of the inspection, cash was recovered from certain members of the general public who were waiting for registration of documents, as well as from document writers and brokers present in the office premises. According to the prosecution, the recovery of the said amounts, coupled with the circumstances prevailing at the office, disclosed the commission of offences under the relevant provisions of law. Accordingly, a case has been registered and investigation is in progress. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as a Sub-Registrar and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that, acting on source information, the officials of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing conducted a surprise inspection in the office where the petitioner was working. During the inspection, certain amounts of cash were recovered from members of the general public who were waiting for registration of documents, as well as from document writers and brokers present in the office premises. However, no money or other incriminating material was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He further submitted that there is no material to show that the petitioner had demanded or accepted any illegal Page3 of 6 gratification. The petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that there was a recovery of Rs. 1000000/- from the sub registration office. Hence, the learned Government Advocate opposed for grant of anticipatory bail.

5.This Court has considered the submissions made on either side.

¶6Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), it is seen that a sum of approximately Rs.10,00,000/- was recovered during the surprise inspection conducted in the office of the Sub-Registrar. However, a perusal of the First Information Report reveals that only a sum of Rs.2,800/- was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, whereas the remaining amount was recovered from members of the general public, document writers, brokers, and other persons present in the office premises. Though the allegations relate to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which are undoubtedly serious in nature, however, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the contents of the First Information Report, the fact Page4 of 6 that only Rs.2,800/- was recovered from the petitioner, and that the prosecution case against the petitioner is, at present, founded primarily on suspicion arising from the circumstances of the surprise inspection, and the petitioner being a women, this Court is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to appropriate conditions.

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned District Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Tirupathur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a)If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned learned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) 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 Page5 of 6 of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c)The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am, until further orders.

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 03-07-2026 JRS To

¶1The District Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Tirupathur.

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

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High court. CRLoOPoNo.o16212oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. JRS CRLoOPoNo.o16212oofo2026 03-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN S Radhika W/o Selvam, No. 295, Dhesamariyamman Kovil Street, Newtown, Vaniyambadi, Tirupattur ..Petitioner/ Accused-1 Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirupathur ..Respondent/ Complainant PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.02 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr. R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For Respondent(s): MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)