Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1938
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M G UMA, J
HARISH. K – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11769 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.H. Jadhav, Chetan Jadhav
For the Respondents: P Prasanna Kumar
The court denied bail citing the seriousness of the alleged offences, potential societal impact, and risks of evidence tampering, prioritizing public interest over individual rights.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 36, 37, 119, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201; Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 7(A)
(C), 7A, 8, 13(1)(A), 13(2) - Bail application of public servant for serious socio-economic offences - The petitioner is accused of conspiring and tampering with examination materials for monetary gain - The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and their impact on public trust in the system, denying bail due to risks of influencing witnesses and evidence. (Paras 12, 17, 27)
(B) Relevant considerations for bail - Economic offences need careful scrutiny due to societal implications. (Paras 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
The accused is a Sub Inspector allegedly involved in a conspiracy to influence exam results in exchange for bribes, amidst serious allegations of corruption affecting public faith in the recruitment system.
Findings of Court:
Sufficient prima facie material exists supporting conspiracy allegations, justifying denial of bail in interest of justice and societal integrity.
Issues: The court considered whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and the implications on public trust in the legal system.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's alleged roles and the grave nature of the charges warrant strong action, with precedence given to collective societal interest over individual liberty in this instance.
Result: The petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner is accused of conspiracy in exam tampering. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. the prosecution provides details on the modus operandi. (Para 5 , 12) |
| 3. the prosecutor argues potential evidence tampering. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. the court explains reasoning for denying bail. (Para 13 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. the court emphasizes societal impact and public trust. (Para 14 , 17 , 18 , 27) |
| 6. final judgment dismisses the petition. (Para 28) |
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.34 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.60 of 2022 of High Grounds Police Station, pending on the file of the learned XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru (CCH No.24), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B , 36, 37, 119, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 7 (a)(c), 7A and 8 and 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the PC Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant P Narasimhamurthy.
2. Heard Sri C H Jadhav, learned senior advocate for Sri Chetan Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.34. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Initially, FIR not registered against 22 accused. Petitioner was not named in it. During investigation, this petitioner is falsely implicated arraying him as accused No.34.
4. The petitioner is a public servant working as Sub Inspector of Police, Byadarahalli Police Station. He was never entrusted with any work relating to the recruitment of candidates for the post of PSIs. He was apprehended on 13.06.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. Initially, FIR was registered with Chowk Police Station, Kalaburagi alleging malpractice in conducting examination and tampering with the answer sheets. All the accused who were named in that case are already enlarged on bail. However, High Grounds police registered Crime No.60 of 2022 against 22 accused alleging malpractice and tampering of OMR sheets. All those accused are already enlarged on bail. Investigation is already completed and the charge sheet is filed. It is alleged that the petitioner acted as a middleman in collecting the amount from accused Nos.14 and 16 and retained Rs.5 lakhs as his commission. There are absolutely no material in support of such allegations. Section 409 of IPC is not at all applicable as there was no criminal breach of trust as alleged. The provisions of PC Act are also not applicable against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the bail petition filed by the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner is a public servant. Since the petitioner is a public servant working as Sub Inspector of Police, he should have been released on bail, as chances of his abscondence is very remote. Where similar allegations of acting as middleman and collecting the amount is made against the private accused, they are already enlarged on bail. When the petitioner is not required for further investigation and when there is no chance of his abscondence, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. His detention in custody would amount pre-trial punishment. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court.
Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, Sri. Prasanna Kumar.P, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-Lokayuktha submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.34. He is working as Sub-Inspector of Police of Byadarahalli Polic
