Dismissed¶30

B.Kavitha v. The State Rep The Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Mar 2026CRL OP/7116/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRL OP No. 7116 of 2026, decided 18-03-2026 by Justice C. Kumarappan: anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS refused to B. Kavitha, accused under Sections 7(b) and 8, Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (2018 amendment), Crime No.2 of 2026, VAC Tirupathur; alleged bribe Rs.3,50,000/- for registering seven sale deeds and a settlement deed over unapproved layout lands at Latheri Village, K.V.Kuppam; CCTV footage stills relied upon; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

In cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court must balance the personal liberty of the individual against the interests of society at large while considering anticipatory bail. ¶25

B.Kavitha Vs The State Rep The Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 7116 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 7116 of 2026

B.Kavitha

..Petitioner(s)

The State Rep The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tirupathur Detachment.

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in the case pending investigation in Crime No.2 of 2026 and thus render justice.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): M/s.Shanmitha For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 7 (b) and Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended in 2018), in Crime No.2 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2 .The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner accepted a bribe of

¶16

Rs.3,50,000/- for registration of seven sale deeds and one settlement deed in respect of the lands in Survey No.490/2C1, 533/1B3A, 533/9 and 387/1B2 of Latheri Village, K.V.Kuppam measuring a total extent of 81 cents. The said

¶17

Page1 of 4

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

CRL OP No. 7116 of 2026

¶20

layout had not been approved by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning. Hence, the complaint.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she is innocent and has not received any bribe and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He

¶22

further submitted that she is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and that she is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and relied upon the CCTV footage stills which allegedly depict the petitioner receiving a sum of money. Hence, he strongly opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶24

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

¶25

6.From the submission of learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), and the materials placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner is an accused in a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In such matters, the Court must balance between the personal liberty of the individual and the interests of the society at large. Considering the nature of allegations, and the

¶26

Page2 of 4

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

CRL OP No. 7116 of 2026

¶29

evidence cited by the prosecution, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail at this stage.

¶30

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶31

18-03-2026