M.Karthik Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M.Karthik vs The State of Tamilnadu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 03, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1663205

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1663205
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jul 03, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP(MD)/13242/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.Karthik

Respondent

The State of Tamilnadu

Excerpt

.....petitioner.5. this court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the rival submissions made by the learned counselon either side and the nature of offences levelled against the petitioner and considering the fact that the petitioner was suspended from service and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 10.06.2026, i am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: [a] accordingly, this petition is ordered and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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 principal district and sessions court, theni, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which she is suspected; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either duringinvestigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned judicial 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]. [g] if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh fir can be registered under section 269 bns.(k r s j) 03.07.2026 vsg to 1.the learned principal.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/07/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR M.Karthik, S/o.Mohanraj, Vao (Under Suspension), Cumbum Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.. ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Theni District. Cr.No.01 of 2026.. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandha Padmanadhan for M/s.Apn Law Associates, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-33B. For Bail in Cr.No.1 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner/Sole Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.06.2026 for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, as amended by the prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, in Crime No.01 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that, while serving as a Village Administrative Officer, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the purpose of making correction in the patta. The same was informed to the respondent police, pursuant to which a trap was laid. After the amount was received by the petitioner, the respondent police intervened, and the phenolphthalein test is positive result. The petitioner was caught red-handed and the case has been registered and the petitioner was arrested on 10.06.2026.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident and he is ready to cooperate with investigation. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.06.2026 and he was suspended from service. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondent Police would submit that the petitioner is in custody from 10.06.2026. He would further submit that the based on the complaint lodged by one Kanagaraj, a trap was laid and he was caught red handed. He would further submit that the investigation is still pending and the offences are grave in nature. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel

on either side and the nature of offences levelled against the petitioner and considering the fact that the petitioner was suspended from service and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 10.06.2026, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, this petition is ordered and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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 Principal District and Sessions Court, Theni, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which she is suspected; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during

investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(K R S J) 03.07.2026 VSG TO 1.The learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Theni.

2. The Superintendent, District Prison, Theni. 3.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Theni District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K. RAJASEKAR,J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13242 of 2026 Date : 03/07/2026

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties M.Karthik vs The State of Tamilnadu Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar