Bail is a rule and rejection is an exception, and the grant of anticipatory bail should consider the nature of the offence, character of the accused, and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.5/2022 of Anti Corruption Police Station Yadgiri, Yadgir, registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988( for short P.C. Act) pending before the District & Sessions Judge, Yadgir.

2. A FIR came to be registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Raghupathi. It is alleged that he is working as a Contractor and having four lorries in which he transports sand as per law after getting Royalty Licence and permission. It is alleged that about 3 to 4 months, accused No.1 Gutheppa Gowda, a police staff working in Dy.S.P. Office, Yadgiri started demanding Rs.40,000.00 per lorry as illegal gratification. Hence, the complainant asked the present petitioner who is an Dy.S.P. to reduce the amount of Rs.40,000.00 and the petitioner told the complainant he will look into the matter. But there was no progress in the matter. Due to repeated request by one Gutheppa Gowda, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.27,000.00 through Phone pay and complainant recorded the conversation between him and Gutheppa Gowda. As said person was repeatedly asking the amount, he lodged a complaint to the police against said Gutheppa Gowda and the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, the ACB police laid the trap and an amount of Rs.35,000.00 was recovered from the first accused. ACB Officials conducted entrustment panchanama and seizure panchanama with the help of panchas and shadow witness on 22/5/2022 itself. As the petition filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge came to be rejected, this petition is filed.

3. Heard Shri. Sanjay A. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1/State who has also filed the objections. Perused the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that that the petitioner has no connection with accused No.1. He has been falsely involved in this case. He is a Government servant and serving as Dy.S.P. and accused No.1 is a police staff and he has no nexus with this petitioner. The trap is conducted only against accused No.1. It is stated that accused No.1 was demanding money. There is no material or statement in the complaint against the petitioner. An FIR was registered against him. The alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.

5. Learned Spl. PP for respondent No.2 argued that at the instigation of the petitioner, accused No.1 was demanding the money. He was working in the office of the petitioner only and as the investigation is still in progress, if the petitioner is released on bail, the petitioner being Dy.SP, may tamper the evidence. The alleged offence is a heinous and it is an economic offence. Though the petitioner was informed about the act of the accused persons, he has not made efforts to enquire on the said aspect. Therefore, as the investigation is going, this petition may be rejected.

6. I have perused the material and also the complaint.

7. A complaint is lodged by the complainant stating that accused No.1 was demanding money. The complainant brought the same to the notice of Dy.SP for which the petitioner told that he will look into the matter. This is only the allegation against the petitioner. At that stage, admittedly, seizure of the money, entrustment panchanama, seizure panchanama, everything is completed as on 25/2/2022. Then definitely, the statement of the witnesses would also have been recorded. It is stated that the petitioner is kept under suspension, so the question of he absconding or fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence does not arise as he was suspended and also transferred from the said place. Question of he tampering the evidence at this stag