The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of custodial interrogation in corruption cases and the importance of cooperation with the investigating agency.

Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 7(a)(b), 7(A), 8, 9, 10
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused No.1, sought anticipatory bail for alleged demand and acceptance of bribe in a tender process for supplying chemical oils to a public company. The complainant alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs.81.00 lakhs as bribe and instructed the complainant to contact his son, accused No.2, for the payment. The Lokayukta police set up a trap and arrested accused No.2 while accepting the bribe.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient evidence to show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence based on the case diary and statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary and cancelled the interim anticipatory bail granted earlier.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demand and acceptance of bribe in a tender process, the involvement of the petitioner and his son in the alleged corruption, and the necessity of custodial interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation in corruption cases and the importance of cooperation with the investigating agency. It cited the judgment in the case of SUNITA DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF HARYANA (2023) 1 SCC 178, stating that if the accused refused to cooperate with the investigation agency, the State could file an application for cancellation of bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail and cancelled the interim anticipatory bail granted earlier.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

K. Natarajan, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.13/2023 of Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru and for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a)(b), 7(A), 8, 9 and 10 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Heard the arguments of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent.

3. The case of prosecution is that on the complaint of one Shreyas Kashyap, S/o. B.S. Gururaj, the police have registered FIR against accused No.1-the present petitioner and his son-accused No.2 and others. It is alleged by the defacto complainant, in his complaint, that he is the partner of the company called Chemixil Corporation and his known person T.A.S. Murthy, who is said to be running a partnership firm in the name of M.S. Delicia Chemicals. They participated in the tender proceedings for procurement of chemical oil to be supplied to Karnataka Soaps And Detergent Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'KSDL') and they are the successful bidders. For the smooth supply of chemicals and chemical oils, they received procurement of raw materials. The accused said to have demanded Rs.81.00 lakhs as bribe and the petitioner-accused No.1 said to be informed the complainant to contact his son-accused No.2. The complainant, not willing to pay bribe amount, lodged a complaint to Lokayukta police. In turn, the said Lokayukta police set up trap and sent Rs.40.00 lakhs with the complainant. At the time of accepting the bribe amount, accused No.2 was caught red hand and trapped by the Lokayukta police and they seized the bribe amount and arrested accused No.2 and arrested accused No.2. It is also alleged in the complaint that, at the time of incident, some other persons were also present. The police seized Rs.45.00 lakhs each from accused Nos.3 and 4 under trap panchanama in the presence of panchas. Accused No.2 and other accused persons were arrested and they were remanded to judicial custody. The name of the petitioner-accused No.1 has been appeared in the FIR. Hence, he had apprehension of arrest in the hands of police. Therefore, he approached this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail and he also filed an interim application under Section 438(1) of Cr.P.C., where this Court granted interim anticipatory bail on 07.03.2023 until disposal of this petition and this Court called for statement objections and documents from the Lokayukta police. Accordingly, they have produced the case diary before the Court in a sealed cover.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner-accused No.1 for demanding any bribe from the complainant. There is no allegation against him even for abetment to pay any bribe. None of the offences are alleged against the petitioner in the FIR and the remand application will attract against the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that Lokayukta police have trapped accused No.2 and recovered some amount and there is no connection between the trap of accused No.2 and this petitioner-accused No.1. There is no work entrustment pending with the petitioner and there is no demand prior to accepting the tender or placing the procurement order. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was no date mentioned as to on what date the petitioner-accused No.1 demanded bribe. Even in the trap panchanama, the investigation officer has stated that there is no material evidence against the petitioner. Immediately, after registering the FIR, the petitioner resigned from the post of Chairman of KSDL.

5. The learned Senor Counsel for the petitioner further contended that there is a separate Committee which has floated and accepted the tender and there is no role played the petitioner-accused No.1 in this regard. The petitioner is a sitting MLA and he is already to co-operated with the invest