IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
L. Kishore Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Vigilence & Anti-Corruption Wing, Chennai - Crime No.1/AC/2022/C-II - Respondent
Criminal Original Petition No. 4677 of 2022
Decided On : 17-03-2022
Corruption - Bail - Prevention of Corruption (Amendment Act 2018) - Section 7(b)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Government Surveyor, was arrested for demanding and receiving bribe money for a change of patta. The petitioner claimed innocence citing a title dispute and transfer of patta in his name.
Finding of the Court:
The court found prima facie evidence for the receipt of bribe money and granted bail to the petitioner considering the completion of substantial part of the investigation and the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation.
Issues: Demand and receipt of bribe money, completion of investigation, necessity for custodial interrogation
Ratio Decidendi: Granting bail based on completion of substantial investigation and lack of necessity for custodial interrogation
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.1/AC/2022/CC-II on the file of the respondent police and pass order.)
1. The petitioner, who was arrested on 11.02.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment Act 2018), in Crime No.1/AC/2022/CC-II, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The petitioner is a Government Surveyor in the Alanthur Taluk. Based on the complaint given by one N.Murugan of Adambakkam, alleging that for change of patta, this petitioner called him over phone and demanded undue advantage of Rs.2,00,000/- for himself and Rs.3,00,000/- for A-1. On 10/02/2022, this petitioner called the defacto complainant and asked him to meet with money. The said conversation regarding demand of bribe money was recorded through the voice recorder App in his Cell phone. Not willing to pay bribe money, he gave the complaint to the respondent. Pursuant to the complaint trap was laid. On 11/02/2022 at 12.30 p.m., in the course of trap proceedings, the defacto complainant went to the spot mentioned by this petitioner and he was followed by the shadow witnesses. In the presence of the shadow witness, this petitioner demanded and received a cover containing Rs.50,000/- marked currency smeared with phenolphthalein powder. On the cover, the name of A-1 was written. Having caught red handed with tainted currency, the petitioner herein was arrested and arrayed as the second accused. The Tahsildar (Additional In-charge) of Alandur Taluk, who directed the petitioner to contact the defacto complainant and demand Rs.5,00,000/- from him is the first accused.
3. While the first accused is still absconding and his anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by this Court on 10/03/2022, the second accused, who is the petitioner herein, had sought for bail, stating that, the petitioner was arrested on 11/02/2022, he is an innocent person and he never demanded any illegal gratification from the defacto complainant. In fact, there was some title dispute between the defacto complainant and others in respect of the subject property. The Patta stood in the name of the rival party of the defacto complainant and after enquiry, the Patta was transferred in the name of the petitioner on 08/02/2022 itself. Therefore, there is no necessity for a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- as illegal gratification for himself and for A-1 (Saravanan), since the work already discharged. He, without knowing that the cover contains money, he received it. since it bear the name of his Superior Officer A-1. For nearly a month, he is in prison and no custodial interrogation was sought by the respondent. Since, substantial part of the investigation is completed, there is no impediment for the respondent if the bail granted.
4. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has filed counter to the bail petition.
5. According to the respondent, the petitioner was caught red handed when he received the bribe money of Rs.50,000/- from the defacto complainant. The phenolphthalein test conducted turned positive and the tainted currency recovered from the petitioner tallied with the currency number recorded in the pre-trap proceedings. The voice sampler of the petitioner drawn is handed over to the State Forensic department and the result is awaited.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in response to Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that, the substantial part of the investigation is over and the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation and the petitioner may be released on bail.
7. This is a case of trap in which the marked currency of Rs.50,000/- was recovered from this petitioner. Thus, there is prima facie evidence for the receipt. In so far as demand is concerned, the prosecution rely upon the alleged conversation between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, recorded on 10/02/2022. T
Granting bail based on completion of substantial investigation and lack of necessity for custodial interrogation
The completion of the material part of the investigation and the recording of the defacto complainant's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are crucial factors in granting bail.
The completion of material part of the investigation and the recording of the statement of defacto complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are crucial factors in determining the grant of bail.
The completion of the material part of the investigation and the recording of the statement of the defacto complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were crucial in granting bail to the petitioners.
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.
Legal standards for granting bail in corruption cases focus on the completion of investigation and potential for witness tampering.
The recovery of tainted currency, positive colour test, and seizure of relevant documents influenced the court's decision to grant bail under stringent conditions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.