The Madras High Court has firmly rejected the anticipatory bail application of an official from the Fire and Rescue Services Department. The official, identified as S Veeraraj, was seeking protection from arrest in a controversial case involving the planting of cash-filled envelopes in a government office in Tirunelveli district.
The Core of the Allegations and DVAC Raid
According to the prosecution's case, officials from the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) conducted searches at the office of Saravana Babu, the Regional Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Services in Tirunelveli. During this raid, a significant amount of cash was confiscated. The total seized was ₹2.61 lakh, with ₹2.20 lakh recovered from the deputy director's room and another ₹41,000 from the table of a fireman named Senthil.
The investigation took a dramatic turn when CCTV footage emerged. The footage reportedly showed an unidentified individual entering the office and placing a white envelope containing cash inside the official's room. Based on a complaint filed by Deputy Director Saravana Babu, the police arrested several accused persons, including some employees of the department itself.
Court Proceedings and Legal Arguments
During the hearing before Justice S Srimathy, the counsel for the petitioner, S Veeraraj, argued that the police had issued summons based merely on suspicion. They maintained that their client was innocent and had no involvement in any offence.
However, the police strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. Their stance was that the allegation against Veeraraj was grave – they claimed he was the mastermind behind the entire offence. The prosecution argued that his custodial interrogation was essential to unravel the full conspiracy.
Justice Srimathy's Decisive Observations
Justice S Srimathy delivered a pointed observation that weighed heavily on the final decision. The judge noted that this appears to be a modus operandi in several departments to hinder the promotions of others. The court explicitly stated that such activities cannot be permitted within the system.
Considering the serious nature of the allegations and the specific role attributed to the petitioner, Justice Srimathy concluded that the court was not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail. The petition was consequently dismissed, leaving it open for the investigating agencies to proceed as per the law.
The case has cast a spotlight on alleged internal malpractices within government departments, with the judiciary taking a stern view of attempts to sabotage colleagues' careers through illicit means.
