Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 40224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 428 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 472 OF 2024 IN CRL.P.428/2024 BETWEEN:
SRI. GIRISH M.S., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRINIVAS, R/AT NO. 939/2, 4TH CROSS, OLD MADRAS ROAD, IN FRONT OF RAPCMS SHANKARPURA, MANDYA CITY, KARNATAKA - 571 401.
…PETITIONER Digitally signed (BY SRI. MAYUR D BHANU, ADVOCATE FOR by V KRISHNA SRI. SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S., ADVOCATE)
Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, SPECIAL COUNSEL)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.0016/2023, DATED 22.12.2023, OF LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7(a) OF P.C. ACT, PENDING BEFORE 3RD ADDL. AND SESSIONS COURT (SITTING AT S.R. PATNA) MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA.
IN CRL.P.472/2024 BETWEEN:
RANI W/O DINESH B.M.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO 117, 7TH CROSS, C BLOCK, BEHIND SAIBABA TEMPLE, J P NAGARA, MYSORE - 570 031.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. LENITA MATHIAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401, REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE - 560 001.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.0016/2023 OF LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7(a) OF P.C. ACT, PENDING BEFORE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGA PATNA).
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Crl.P.No.428/2024 is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 and Crl.P.No.472/2024 is filed by the petitioner- accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.PC for granting bail in Crime No.16/2023 registered by Lokayukta Police, Mandya for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respective counsel appearing for the respondent-
Lokayukta.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint filed by Sri.P.Prashanth, before the Lokayukta Police alleging that he has filed an application for change of Katha in respect of property stands in the name of his mother. Where accused No.1 said to be Chief Officer of Town Municipality, Srirangapatna and accused No.2 said to be Revenue Officer, working in the same office of accused No.1, are said to be demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for change of Katha. The complainant is not willing to pay the said bribe amount. Hence, he filed the complaint before the Lokayukta Police and a trap was set up by the police. Accordingly, on 23.12.2023, when the complainant went to the office of accused No.1 with a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, accused No.1 demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was recovered by the police. A sum of Rs.10,000/- said to be recovered from the table of accused No.2. Accordingly, both petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Their bail petitions came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner-accused No.1 would contend that there is no demand and acceptance of a bribe amount. Even otherwise, accused No.1 is a woman and she in judicial custody for more than one month. She is suffering from some ailments which are referred in the trial Court. She is having a son, no body is there to look after him. Most of the investigation is complete. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner-accused No.2 would contend that accused No.2 was not at all present at the time of trap. The money was recovered from his table. He has not demanded any bribe amount. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents in both petitions objected the petitions and would contend that there was a demand for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Even on the day of the trap, accused No.1 expected a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, but the complainant has brought only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. There was a telephonic conversation between the complainant and accused No.1 intimating that he has brought only Rs.1,00,000/- because of withdrawing limit is barred on the day. It is an admitted fact that accused No. 2 was not present at the time of recovery of amount from his table. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petitions.
7. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, of course there was telephonic conversation between accused No.1 and the complainant prior to the trap and registration of FIR. Subsequent to the compliant, even prior to the trap, there was a conversation between accused No.1 and the complainant, wherein the complainant stated he had brought only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, accused No.1 stated to bring it, which reveals accused No.1 has demanded and accepted the amount. However, she has been trapped, the hand wash of accused No.1 turned into pink which suggests the petitioner-accused No.1 has demanded and accepted the bribe money. However, the money was taken from the table of accused No.2, who was not present at the time of trap. More than one month, they are in custody, most of the investigation is completed except receiving the FSL report. Accused No.1 is leading and accused No.2 was not trapped at the time of trapping accused No.1.
8. By looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and by imposing certain conditions, if the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are granted bail, no prejudi
