The absence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is crucial in determining bail under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT

S. Rachaiah, J. - The petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.11/2022 of Lokayukta Police, registered for the offence of punishable under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Lokayukta Police.

2. Heard Sri.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for Sri. B.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 09.11.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner is working as Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, S-17, Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, HAL, Bengaluru. The complainant is a contractor and he was entrusted the work of getting the approval from the petitioner and his higher authorities for low tension electricity supply. The work was pending before the petitioner for warranted documents which were not provided to complete the work and give approval for new LT electricity supply.

5. It is further submitted that, the alleged amount was kept in the drawer in absence of the petitioner. It is also required to be noticed that, the shadow witness and his statement appears to be true with regard to absence of the petitioner when the alleged illegal gratification was kept in the drawer of the petitioner. The demand and acceptance which is sine-quo-non to constitute an offence under Section 7A of PC Act. However, the said demand and acceptance is absent in this case. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the illegal gratification is recovered in the drawer of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the shadow witnesses and panch witnesses have supported the case. Hence, prima facie, the respondent made out a case against the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

7. After having heard the learned counsel for parties and perusing the trap mahazar and also the complaint, it appears that major portion of the investigation is over, such as, seizure of currency notes, the alleged conversation between the petitioner and the complainant said to have recorded in the mobile, also produced. The statements of shadow and panch witnesses have been recorded. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. The alleged offences are not punishable neither death nor imprisonment for life, there is no embargo to grant bail. If suitable conditions are imposed to the petitioner to assist the investigating agency to complete the investigation, which will take care of the apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witness would be satisfied.

8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.11/2022 of Lokayukta Police, registered for the offence of punishable under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.