Senthil balaji / HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.Nos.17765 and 17241 of 2026 V Senthil Balaji S/o.P.Velusamy, Residing at No.123, Rameswarapatti, Manmangalam, Karur District – 639 006. (Sitting MLA,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.17765 and 17241 of 2026
V Senthil Balaji
S/o.P.Velusamy,
Residing at No.123, Rameswarapatti,
Manmangalam,
Karur District – 639 006.
(Sitting MLA, Coimbatore South
Constituency)
Petitioner in Crl.O.P.17765/2026
R.V. Ashok Kumar
S/o.P.Velusamy, No.123,
Rameswarapatti,
Manmangalam,
Karur District – 639 006.
Petitioner in Crl.O.P.17241/2026
Vs
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police
D-1 Police Station, Triplicane, Chennai.
Crime No.205 of 2026
Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.17765 of 2026:
Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS seeking to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest or on appearance before any Court in connection with Crime No.205 of 2026 on the file of the D-1 Police Station, Triplicane, Chennai, the respondent police.
Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.17241 of 2026:
Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS seeking to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest or on appearance before any Court in connection with Crime No.205 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners: Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for M/s.S.Vinoth Kumar in Crl.O.P.No.17765 of 2026
Mr.P.Kumaresan, Senior Counsel for M/s.S.Vinoth Kumar in Crl.O.P.No.17241 of 2026
For Respondent: Mr.R.Johnsathyan
State Public Prosecutor
Assisted By
Mr.Arun Anbumani
Government Advocate
(Crl.Side) in both Crl.O.Ps.
C O M M O N O R D E R
The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the
respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 8 and 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 61(2)(a) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.205 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had received a call from the phone number 90477 77775 from a person introducing himself as Thirunavukkarasu and had stated that he is running an opinion poll company called IPDS in Chennai. He had informed the defacto complainant that he had called for an important purpose and that he had contacted him upon the directions of persons from an important political party and he had asked if the defacto complainant could meet him in his house, for which the defacto complainant had replied by stating that he is busy and that the matter can be conveyed over phone itself. Further, the defacto complainant had disconnected the call as the caller had repeatedly insisted on meeting him personally. The caller kept repeatedly calling him through WhatsApp but the defacto complainant did not answer the same. Once again at about 10.20 p.m., when the said caller had called the defacto complainant through WhatsApp, the defacto complainant had answered the call and at that time, the said person had told him that he had come to that position in his career with great difficulty and that he has no idea as to how long the DMK Government will last and that if the defacto complainant does as he says, both will be benefitted. But the defacto complainant had informed that he has no interest in the said deal. Immediately, the caller had informed the defacto complainant that he would be provided with Rs.35 Crores and that he need not resign and the caller had further informed him that though it is his duty to vote as per the Whip’s directions he should not do so and that it is enough if he acts as per their directions during the motion against the Speaker and for which he will be given Rs.35 Crores. It was further informed that if the defacto complainant agrees to the said deal, then on behalf of the party, one Naresh, Krishnan and one Ashok Kumar who are aware of all the dealings will meet him and take care of everything. The defacto complainant had informed the caller that he is not interested in the said deal and asked him not to speak to him any further. But, the said caller kept repeating the same thing and the defacto complainant asked him not to talk to him again. Immediately, the caller had told the defacto complainant that it is good for him and his family only if he acts as per his directions and had threatened the defacto complainant that he will face dire consequences otherwise and the said person also had threatened the defacto complainant that he should not reveal to anyone about the conversation and if he does so, then him and his family members will not be alive. The above stated allegations amounts to destabilisation of the elected Government and amounts to offences against a public servant. Hence the defacto complainant lodged a complaint.
3.On receipt of the said complaint, the respondents registered the
FIR in Crime No.205 of 2026 for the offence under Sections 8 and 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 61(2)(a) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17765 of 2026 submitted that the petitioner is not a named accused in the FIR. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner’s name was not whispered by any of the accused. There is no allegation as against the petitioner that he sent a message, authorised the caller, met the complainant, deputed any person, arranged or handled money, issued any threat or participated in any meeting or conspiracy. Offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require at least a prima facie material showing conscious offer, promise, abetment, facilitation or participation in gratification. Conspiracy under
Section 61(2)(a) of BNS requires material showing meeting of minds. Criminal intimidation under Section 351(3) of BNS cannot be fastened on a person who is not alleged to have uttered, conveyed or caused any threat. Even according to the prosecution, person who had called the defacto complainant was the one who threatened him with dire consequences. He further submits that there is no call detail record, WhatsApp communication, voice record, message, tower location, CCTV footage, bank transaction, money trail, recovery, document, electronic record or independent witness connecting the petitioner with the alleged offer of Rs.35 Crores or with the alleged threat. He further submits that the petitioner is a Sitting Member of Legislative Assembly of Coimbatore South Constituency and he is a responsible person representing the general public. It was further submitted that the petitioner has public responsibilities and deep roots in society and
that he is very much available at his residence and is ready to co-operate with the investigation.
5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17241 of 2026 submitted that though one of the accused stated the name of the petitioner herein, he is in noway connected with the alleged occurrence. His name was used by the caller who called the defacto complainant that too by mentioning that if the defacto complainant agrees for the said transaction, the persons including the petitioner will meet him for negotiations. There is no specific or direct allegations against the petitioner to implicate the petitioner as an accused. Only because the petitioner happens to be the brother of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17765 of 2026, he has been falsely implicated as an accused in the case. The present FIR has been registered with a political motive and no offence is made out as against the petitioner.
6.On a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and
also on the submissions made by the learned State Public Prosecutor, it is revealed that, on receipt of the complaint from the defacto complainant, the respondent registered FIR. During the course of investigation, the respondent collected electronic evidence, digital records, CCTV footage and other relevant materials. As on date, nine accused persons were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. That apart, inorder to take A2, A7 and A8 for further interrogation, the respondent also filed petition in Crl.M.P.No.6113 of 2026 before the trial Court seeking Police custody for further
interrogation and the said petition is reserved for orders by the trial Court.
7.The learned State Public Prosecutor submits that the act of the accused amounts to destabilization of the elected Government. A1 confessed before the respondent that the petitioners are involved in the transaction and only on their instigation, A1 contacted the defacto complainant and informed about the payment of Rs.35 Crores. During the first week of June, 2026, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17241 of 2026 along with A2, A7, A8 along with one Lakshmanaperumal held a secret meeting at a liquor bar where the criminal conspiracy was furthered in the assignment to make several Members of Legislative Assembly of the present ruling party leave their party and it was discussed that each such Member of Legislative Assembly will be paid a sum of Rs.35 Crores and that the accused who would be acting as intermediaries will be paid Rs.5 Crores. Further, on 13.06.2026, A2, A7, A8 along with one Lakshmanaperumal once again met at a hotel on East Coast Road and discussed to advance the execution of the conspiracy. Subsequently, in the last week of June, 2026, A2 met A1, A9, A3, A4, A5 and A6 at a hotel in Guindy for furthering the criminal conspiracy and for carrying forward their illegal design. Further, the confession statement disclosed that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17241 of 2026 acted on behalf of his brother/ the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17765 of 2026 and had promised the said payment of Rs.35 Crores and Rs.5 Crores to the intermediaries. He further submits that the electronic evidence collected during investigation, particularly the call detail records and location analysis, discloses that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17765 of 2026 and A1 were present at Erode on 25.06.2026. On the same day in the evening, A1 came to Chennai and in association with A9, booked a room in a hotel at Guindy, furthered the criminal conspiracy and executed the same along with A2, A3, A4, A5, A6 and A9. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are very much required in this case and there is a possibility that the petitioners could tamper the witnesses and evidences if they are granted anticipatory bail. He also pointed out the previous cases pending against the petitioners.
8.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17765 of 2026, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17241 of 2026 as well as the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
9.Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner in
Crl.O.P.No.17765 of 2026 is not a named accused in Crime No.205 of 2026.
Though the name of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17241 of 2026 was used by A1 during his call with the defacto complainant on 26.06.2026, as if, if the defacto complainant agrees for the transaction of Rs.35 Crores, he along with two other persons will contact the defacto complainant for negotiations, the entire allegation suggests that the arrested accused persons conspired together along with the petitioners to destabilise the present Government.
10.On a perusal of the entire FIR, it is revealed that A1 called the
defacto complainant and informed him that though it is his duty to vote as per the Whip’s directions, he should not do so and that it is enough if he acts as per their directions during the motion against the Speaker and for which he will be given Rs.35 Crores. There is no allegation to the effect that inorder to topple the present Government, the accused conspired together and called the defacto complainant and offered him a huge sum of illegal gratification. Further, even according to the case of the prosecution, the accused conspired together and made an offer to a Member of the Legislative Assembly, however, the defacto complainant did not agree to the same and their attempt ended in vein. The prosecution has arrested nine accused persons. That apart the petitioners were also issued with notice under Section 35 (3) of BNSS to appear for enquiry. However, the petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent. Furthermore, it is mainly on the confession statement of the other accused persons, that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17765 of 2026 is likely to be impleaded as an accused and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.17241 of 2026 has been impleaded as an accused.
11.In view of the above, the custodial interrogation of both the petitioners are not required in this case. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
12.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail
in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai (Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act) on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:
(a)the petitioners and 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. in the Morning and at 5.30 p.m. in the Evening and shall co-operate to the investigation until further orders;
(c)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either
during investigation or trial;
(d)the petitioners shall not abscond 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners were 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]; and;
(f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered
under Section 229-A IPC.
08.07.2026 pri
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes/ No
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
D-1 Police Station, Triplicane, Chennai.
Crime No.205 of 2026
2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai – 600 009. G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J. pri
Crl.O.P.Nos.17765 and 17241 of 2026
08.07.2026