The judgment establishes the importance of considering prima facie evidence and the seriousness of offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act in denying bail to the accused.

JUDGMENT

K.Natarajan, J. - This petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in Crime No.49/2022 registered by ACB Police, Bangalore for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act').

2. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner's counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-ACB.

3. The case of prosecution is that on the complaint of one Manjunath, the respondent-police registered the case for the aforesaid offence. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant Manjunath, who is said to be the GPA holder of Suvvalal Jain and Suresh Chand Jain, filed an application before the BDA for providing an alternate site for having utilised the land measuring 33 guntas in Sy. No.206 situated at Kengeri village from the aforesaid two persons by the BDA for formation of road without any acquisition proceedings. When the application was filed by the complainant, the petitioner-accused being the Assistant Engineer of BDA, demanded amount of Rs.1.00 crore and the petitioner has bargained to receive Rs.60.00 lakhs and accordingly, Rs.5.00 lakhs was handed over by the defacto complainant on 07.06.2022. The petitioner was trapped by the ACB and Rs.5.00 lakhs was seized from his possession and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. His bail petition came to be rejected by the Special Judge and hence he is before this Court.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated by the complainant. It is contended that the original land owners filed an application on 08.06.2022 seeking alternative land and they withdrew the said application and therefore, prosecution has not made out any ground of demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner and the work entrustment also not pending with the petitioner. The concerned file was with the Additional Executive Engineer but not with this petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for almost more than 11/2 months. The petitioner has no role to play in passing any orders. Mere acceptance of the amount cannot be a ground to show that the petitioner has demanded and accepted the bribe amount. Hence, learned Senior Counsel prayed for the grant of bail.

5. Per contra, learned Special Counsel for respondent has seriously objected the petition by filing objections. He contended that the file pertaining to the defacto complainant has been moved before the BDA and the same was forwarded on 02.11.2021 to Additional Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, it was forwarded to Surveyor and then, the file was placed before the Executive Engineer (West), and thereafter on 03.01.2022, the file was forwarded to the petitioner, who is Assistant Engineer and for the last six months, he kept the file pending, until he received the bribe and trapped. The file was moved after the arrest of the petitioner which clearly reveals that the file was with the petitioner and he has not passed any order for the last six months until the bribe amount was payable by the complainant as demanded by the petitioner. He would further contend that the conversation held between the petitioner and the defacto complainant has been transcribed which clearly reveals the demand made by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the ACB has also produced a case diary in respect of the Investigation of the case and contended that investigation is being conducted by the ACB and it is still pending and therefore, if the petitioner is granted bail, he may likely tamper the prosecution witnesses and absconding from the case is not ruled out. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of any bail. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Having heard the arguments of learned Counsel for both sides, especially, the trap panchanama as well as the complaint made by the defacto compl