Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen, while considering a regular bail application, granted bail to the petitioner accused of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that continued detention was not required in view of the progress of the investigation and the petitioner being a first-time offender. The bail was granted with conditions intended to safeguard the investigation and prevent any interference with witnesses or evidence.

The prosecution case arises from Crime No. TSR/V.C.05/2025 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thrissur, registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018. The accused, Sajeesh A., a 47-year-old Senior Grade Civil Police Officer attached to Ollur Police Station, Thrissur, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/- from the defacto complainant.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Rape And Assault FIRs Based On Settlement | Says Continuation Of Proceedings Would Be Abuse Of Process | Complainant Married And Unwilling To Pursue Charges Under Section 376 IPC

According to the complaint, on 20.05.2025 and 01.07.2025, the petitioner allegedly demanded the bribe through a mobile phone for providing required documents in relation to a case. Upon receiving the complaint, the VACB conducted a preliminary verification and found the complaint to be genuine. A trap was subsequently arranged on 02.07.2025. During the trap operation, the accused allegedly accepted the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/-, which had been entrusted to the defacto complainant. The accused was then apprehended on the spot by the vigilance officials.

The petitioner was taken into custody on 02.07.2025 and remained in judicial custody as the bail proceedings progressed. He approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was innocent and that there was no substantial material indicating demand and acceptance of bribe. Further, the counsel submitted that the petitioner was ready to cooperate with the investigation and did not possess any prior criminal antecedents.

Annexures A, B, and C produced along with the petition included the crime records and the prior order dated 09.07.2025 in CRL.M.P. No. 760 of 2025 issued by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. These documents were considered by the High Court during the proceedings.

The learned Public Prosecutor representing the State opposed the bail plea. It was submitted that the petitioner had been caught red-handed in the trap while accepting the bribe. Although the prosecutor admitted that the petitioner had no previous criminal record, it was argued that his release on bail could lead to influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence.

The Court reviewed the available records including the trap mahazar and found that the case, as presented by the prosecution, did prima facie indicate the elements of demand and acceptance. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner was a first-time offender and had been in custody for over two weeks, the Court proceeded to consider bail.

The Court began by noting the essential prosecution allegations: "the accused, while working as Senior Civil Police Officer attached to Ollur Police Station, demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe from the defacto complainant through mobile phone on 20.05.2025 and 01.07.2025..." and that the accused "was red handedly arrested" in a trap laid by VACB officials on 02.07.2025.

It further observed that: "the defacto complainant moved an application before the VACB. On pre-verification of the same, the complaint was found as genuine. Thereafter, a trap was arranged... During the proceedings, the accused demanded and accepted Rs.2,000/- entrusted by the defacto complainant."

In response to the petitioner’s denial of guilt, the Court recorded: "Even though, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused argued that the petitioner is innocent and there is no materials to show the demand and acceptance of bribe... the mahazar produced by the petitioner itself would show that there was demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner, prima facie."

On the prosecution’s concern regarding witness tampering, the Court acknowledged: "Though, the learned Public Prosecutor conceded that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, she pointed out that there is chance for influencing the witnesses and tampering the evidence, in the event of release of the petitioner on bail."

The Court noted the duration of custody and the state of the investigation: "the petitioner, a first time offender, has been in custody from 02.07.2025 and the investigation has achieved much progress." It then concluded: "Taking into consideration the above aspects, I am of the view that, further custody of the petitioner, for the purpose of investigation is not necessary and he can be enlarged on bail."

The High Court granted the bail application with specific conditions to ensure the integrity of the investigation.

The Court directed: "The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional court concerned."

It further ordered that: "The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for trial."

Additionally, the Court required the petitioner to maintain regular contact with the investigation process: "The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed, apart from appearing before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 9 am and 10 am, for a period of three months or till the completion of investigation, whichever is earlier."

The petitioner was also restrained from engaging in any act that may undermine the ongoing inquiry. The Court mandated: "The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer."

Also Read: Section 200 CrPC Allows Direct Approach To Magistrate | J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating Case Over ₹18 Lakh Job Fraud Allegation

The order warned of immediate consequences in the event of any further legal violations: "The petitioner shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this court, the same alone shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted."

Travel restrictions were imposed to maintain judicial oversight: "The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Court without prior permission of the Jurisdictional Court."

Lastly, the Court cautioned: "Violation of any of the conditions imposed shall result in cancellation of bail hereby granted."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Smt. Anupama Subramanian, Advocate

For the Respondents: Rajesh A., Special Public Prosecutor, VACB; Rekha S., Senior Public Prosecutor, VACB

Case Title: Sajeesh A. v. State of Kerala

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:53547

Case Number: B.A. No. 8637 of 2025

Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen