Anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused cooperates with the investigation and there is no strong evidence suggesting a flight risk or tampering with evidence.

ORAL ORDER

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent/Lokayukta Police.

2. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has filed statement of objections to the main petition as well as the application seeking interim bail.

3. Petitioner, apprehending her arrest in Crime No.45/2024 registered by Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru City has preferred this petition seeking anticipatory bail, her similar petition having been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc No.11322/2024 dated 19.12.2024.

4. FIR is registered against the petitioner and three more named accused and others for offences punishable under Section 409 , 417 , 420 , 465 , 468 r/w 120B of IPC and Section 7-A , 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .

5. Sum and substance of the allegations are that the accused have committed huge financial fraud against the Government and misappropriated the grants released for various employment schemes undertaken for upliftment of poor, helpless, voiceless and the persons who are not having any employment.

6. The material on record would disclose that registration of FIR was the outcome of a complaint dated 08.08.2023 submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru City, Karnataka Lokayuta by one Samruddi Bharatha Foundation (R). In the said complaint allegations are made regarding misuse of the funds granted under various schemes undertaken for the upliftment of weaker section of the Society etc., against several officials of BBMP, numbering 14. It appears that a preliminary enquiry was conducted after taking permission under Section 17 A of the PC Act from the Chief Commissioner of BBMP and based on the said report FIR was registered against the petitioner, then working as Assistant Revenue Officer (Welfare – west) in the office of the Joint Commissioner of BBMP at Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru City and three private persons and others.

7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has contended that in the enquiry, the involvement of the petitioner along with others has come to light and therefore, the FIR is registered and investigation is taken up. He would contend that investigation is under progress and several documents are yet to be secured and witnesses are to be examined. Petitioner is absconding and therefore, if the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, she may thwart the investigation. He contended that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and therefore, she is not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner would draw the attention of the Court to the two mahazars conducted by the Lokayukta Police, one in the residential premises of the petitioner and one Satyamurthy working as Deputy Controller, Finance, and another in the premises of the Office of Joint Commissioner, East Division, Sheshadripuram, conducted on 27.11.2024 to contend that inspite of conducting a raid, no incriminating materials are recovered/seized from the house of the petitioner. He would contend that certain records are recovered from the house of Satyamurthy but not from the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, petitioner has been targeted by leaving other officials named in the complaint including Satyamurthy, working as Deputy Controller, Finance, who has not been named as an accused in the FIR.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation when the raid was conducted in her house and she was very much present and the household articles etc., found in the house of the petitioner were returned to her as per mahazar.

10. I have perused the two mahazars dated 27.11.2024. The house of the petitioner was searched on the said date. As per the said mahazar no incriminating material, records pertaining to the case were seized from her house. The household articles and valuables found were left in the custody of the petitioner.

11. The prosecu