V.Purushothaman vs The State Rep By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

This is a petition for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 12/AC/2026 on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Krishnagiri, registered on 01.09.2026 for offences under Section 7(b) and Section 12 read with Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018.

The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is this. The petitioner was the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Hosur. The de-facto complainant runs a crusher unit, M/s. Sri Kanna Blue Metals, in the name of his brother, and a Consent to Establish for its expansion had been applied for. The complainant says that when he met the petitioner at his office on 20.08.2026 the petitioner asked for Rs.15,00,000/-; that the second accused, a consultant from Salem, then carried the demand to him; and that when he met the petitioner again on 27.08.2026 the figure was settled at Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid on 02.09.2026 and the balance on 15.09.2026, and he was told to deal thereafter with the second accused. The consent orders were issued on 31.08.2026. The complainant recorded the conversations on his mobile phone and produced them with his complaint on 01.09.2026. According to the counter affidavit, in the trap that followed the complainant was directed to hand over Rs.3,00,000/- to the third accused, who was intercepted and from whom the amount was recovered. The petitioner was arrested on 03.09.2026 and has been in custody since then, for a little over six weeks. The investigation is in progress.

The petitioner's two applications for bail before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, in Crl.M.P. Nos. 2481 ad 2587 of 2026, were dismissed on 10.09.2026 and 21.09.2026, for the same reasons: the seriousness of the allegation; the seizure of 27 documents, being consent orders and renewal orders issued by the petitioner during his earlier posting at Salem, where he is said to have come to know the second accused; the recorded conversations, which were then under investigation; the initial stage of the investigation; and the possibility that the petitioner might influence it. On 30.09.2026 I dismissed the petitions of the second and third accused, Crl.O.P. Nos. 28034 and 28078 of 2026, on the ground that the investigation was still pending.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made these submissions.

[a] The petitioner took charge at Hosur only on 29.06.2026 and has been implicated owing to rivalry with consultants who practise before the Board.

[b] Nothing was recovered from him, and the trap proceedings are complete.

[c] The offences are punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and the arrest was made without regard to Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

[d] The records are in official custody and he has no access to them. It was represented at the hearing that the petitioner has been under suspension since 10.09.2026. He undertakes to abide by any condition that may be imposed.

The respondent has filed a counter affidavit of the investigating officer, sworn on 12.10.2026, and the petition is opposed on its lines. It is stated that the trap and the recovery are not the whole of the investigation. What remains, according to paragraphs 11 and 16 to 19 of the counter affidavit, is the forensic examination of the recorded conversations, including comparison with specimen voices of the accused; the Internet Protocol Detail Records of the three accused and the complainant, which have been requisitioned and are yet to be received, to find out whether the first and second accused spoke over WhatsApp, since the call detail records of the second accused show no call between them; the verification of the records of the consent proceedings; and the examination of witnesses. It is said that the petitioner, having held a responsible office, may influence persons connected with those records.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before me.

The accusation is a serious one. It concerns the conduct of an officer in the very proceeding he was deciding, and nothing in this order lessens it. But the seriousness of the charge is not the only test. The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at the trial; it is neither punitive nor preventive, as held in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40. The question is whether the petitioner's detention is still needed for the investigation or to secure his presence.

It was represented that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 10.09.2026. The 27 documents relied on by the Court of Session have been seized. The consent orders issued for the unit are records of the Board. The recordings were handed over with the complaint, copied onto a disc and forwarded to the court with the first information report. The amount has been recovered.

The Internet Protocol Detail Records are to come from the service providers, not from petitioner. The comparison of voices needs a specimen of his voice, which the competent court may direct him to give under Section 349 of the BNSS, and a condition is imposed herein to secure his compliance. The records of the consent proceedings are with the Board, and the petitioner, under suspension, has no charge of them. The counter affidavit records in paragraph 16 that the call detail records of the second accused show no call between him and the petitioner. Whether they spoke by other means is for the investigation, and the petitioner's custody does not advance that inquiry. The apprehension that he may influence witnesses is urged in paragraphs 13 and 19 of the counter affidavit in general terms, without a single instance in support. Apprehensions so stated can be adequately met by conditions. The counter affidavit does not allege any previous case against him.

The submission founded on Arnesh Kumar (cited supra) goes to the arrest, and the arrest is not in question in this petition. The plea of enmity is a matter of defence. That no money was recovered from the petitioner himself does not decide anything at this stage, since the case is that the money was to reach him through others; whether it was to reach him is the very question the recordings and the communications are said to answer. That is a matter for the trial, and I leave it open.

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and 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 Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, and the petitioner shall also comply with the following conditions: