Rajasekar v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police

O R D E R The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

09.07.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 8 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 61(2)(a) and 351(3) of BNS in Crime No.205 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant received WhatsApp calls from the first accused, who offered a sum of Rs.35 crores as illegal gratification to influence his conduct in relation to the proposed no confidence motion concerning the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and also the defacto complainant was threatened with dire consequence in the event of refusal.

¶3The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner do not find place either in the complaint or in the FIR. The entire narrative contained in the FIR is confined to the alleged acts of the first accused and only during the course of the subsequent investigation on the basis of the materials collected, the implication of the petitioner has arisen. Further, since all the material evidences have already been collected and remain in the custody of the investigation agency, there is no reasonable basis to apprehend that the petitioner, if enlarged on bail, would tamper with evidence. As such, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶4The respondent police filed counter and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that during the course of investigation, the defacto complainant and other materials witnesses were examined and some electronic evidence, digital records, CCTV footage and certain other materials have been collected. The prosecution also had examined and arrested 14 accused persons. After their arrest, the accused voluntarily had given confession statements and electronic devices used in the commission of offences were also seized. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he is arrayed as A11, who is the Doctor by Profession. However, without doing the Profession as Doctor, he associated with A7 and A8. They entered into criminal conspiracy and planned to induce elected Members of the Legislative Assembly belonging to present ruling party by offering illegal gratification to influence the discharge of their official functions and voting in the Legislative Assembly. He further submitted that the petitioner willingly agreed to receive, retain, conceal and disburse the conspiracy funds entrusted to him for implementation of the illegal scheme. Accordingly, A7 entrusted a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- to the petitioner for safe custody an utilization towards the execution of the criminal conspiracy. Thereafter, the said amount was recovered. After his arrest, he was taken to police custody for interrogation. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is possibility of hampering and tampering of material evidence.

¶5Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the period of incarceration by the petitioner from the date of arrest i.e.

09.07.2026 and already granted bail to the A7 and A8 by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.19709 of 2026, dated 28.07.2026, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) (each) with two blood related sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily 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 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 petitiones thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

30.07.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order dm 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

1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2.The Inspector of Police, D-1 Triplicane Police Station, Chennai.

3.The Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

, J.

dm

30.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Rajasekar … Petitioner vs. The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, D-1 Triplicane Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.205 of 2026 on the file of D-1 Triplicane Police Station, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajarathinam Senior Counsel for M/s.N.Sundaravadivelu For Respondent : Mr.Arun Anbumani Government Advocate (Crl.Side)