Granting anticipatory bail in cases involving serious allegations of corruption and other offences requires stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent interference with witnesses and evidence.

JUDGMENT

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by accused No. 2 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 4/2017 of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Police Station Koppal for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c)(d)(i)(ii)(iii), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act', for brevity) read with Sections 409, 464, 477A, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for brevity).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner while deputed to Minor Irrigation Department from Public Works Department at Bidar a show cause notice was issued to him by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, North Vijayapura alleging that while was working during the year 2009-10 and 2011-12 has paid bills more than the grant received while executing works no annual plans were prepared; works were executed without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority; executed the works in violation of Article 15 of the Karnataka Financial Code. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice and he has submitted his reply denying the allegations made against him. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer submitted the report before Government and based on the report of the Chief Engineer, Vijayapura, has referred the matter to the Karnataka Lokayukta under Section 7(2) of the Lokayukta Act, 1984 for further investigation. The Lokayukta submitted its report on 10.01.2017. The State Government directed the Executive Engineer to register a criminal complaint against this petitioner and two others by order dated 19.08.2017. The Anti Corruption Bureau, Koppal has registered the FIR on 28.10.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c)(d)(i)(ii)(iii), 13(2) of P.C. Act read with Sections 409, 464, 477A, 420 and 120B of IPC. The petitioner apprehending his arrest has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 713/2017 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal by order dated 04.04.2018.

In the meanwhile, accused Nos. 5 and 3 approached this Court challenging the FIR and complaint under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P. Nos. 101901/2018 and 101902/2018. This Court has stayed further proceedings in the investigation by order dated 23.03.2018. The petitioner in W.P. No. 101902/2018 died during pendency and the petition came to be dismissed as abated. W.P. No. 101901/2018 filed by accused No. 3 came to be allowed quashing the proceedings against him. After disposal of the said writ petitions, the respondent proceeding with the investigation and therefore this petitioner apprehends his arrest.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri. Santosh B. Malagoudar for respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that after disposal of the said two writ petitions, the Anti Corruption Bureau, Koppal is proceeding with the investigation and therefore this petitioner apprehending his arrest. The petitioner is retired Executive Engineer and he retired on 30.04.2017. The alleged act by this petitioner is in the years 2009-10 to 2012-13. It is his further submission that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the Investigating Agency. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life except the offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor would contend that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. The petitioner is retired Executive Engineer and if he is granted anticipatory bail, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for t