Jude @ Jude Antony vs. The Superintendent Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, Jude @ Jude Antony (A3), sought anticipatory bail in FIR No.RC2292021A0002/2021 registered by the CBI, Madurai. The prosecution alleged that the first accused, a public servant, approved contractor bills and demanded illegal gratification. The petitioner, a subcontractor for electrical works, submitted a bill of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The first accused allegedly demanded Rs. 50,000/- for clearing the bills and Rs. 1,00,000/- for refunding GST. The petitioner, through the second accused, was informed that his bills were cleared. The case was registered after the first accused was found involved in similar demands from other contractors. The petitioner claimed to be a witness and a victim, ready to cooperate with the investigation. The respondent argued that the petitioner had bribed accused 1 and 2, leading to his implication. The Court had previously granted interim anticipatory bail.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, highlighting his cooperative stance and his claim of being a victim and witness. The Court also noted the respondent's submission that the petitioner had fully cooperated with the inquiry as per the Court's earlier directions. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations against the petitioner. The operative directions included releasing the petitioner on bail upon arrest or appearance within fifteen days, executing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties, reporting to the police weekly, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses, nor absconding. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No.RC2292021A0002/2021, considering the allegations of bribery and his role as a subcontractor. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that he was not an accused but a witness and a victim in the case. He was prepared to cooperate with the investigating agency and provide all necessary details. Respondent's Contentions: The respondent contended that the petitioner had bribed the first and second accused, which led to his implication as an accused in the FIR. The respondent also noted that the first accused, who was arrested and subsequently released on bail, was responsible for approving contractor bills and had demanded illegal gratification.