Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21681
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J
MR. H.V. YARAPPA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9469 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SRI. I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA
For the Respondents: SRI. B.S. PRASAD
The court ruled bail can be granted with conditions to assure presence without compromising justice; mere allegations are insufficient for pre-trial detention.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7(a) - Bail application - The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, was accused of demanding a bribe for sanctioning bills related to contracts awarded by the BBMP. The investigation lacked solid evidence, and arguments were made regarding absence of direct demand or possession of tainted currency by the petitioner. The Court emphasized fair balance between individual rights and justice. (Paras 3, 4, 8, 9)
(B) Bail - Grounds for bail - The refusal of bail should not serve as a means of pre-trial punishment. Safety of evidence and witness tampering can be managed through conditions imposed on bail. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for allegedly demanding Rs.10,00,000/- as a bribe for processing bills related to government contracts, however, claimed insufficient evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the bail petition, imposing conditions to ensure the petitioner's presence and the integrity of the trial.
Issues: Necessity of proving demand and acceptance of bribe was pivotal to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the obligation of proof lies on the prosecution and set forth conditions to balance the interests of justice while recognizing the rights of the accused.
Result: Petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final decision to allow bail (Para 1) |
| 2. court’s imposition of conditions for bail (Para 2 , 9) |
| 3. bail context and charges (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. arguments regarding evidence and bribe (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
ORAL ORDER
This petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is preferred by the petitioner/accused to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.31/2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘PC Act’) by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru City.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent. Perused the material on record.
3. Brief facts:- The BBMP awarded contracts to one M/s BMRG Projects India Pvt. Limited for road and culvert constructions in ward No.88 of Jeevan Bheemanagar, 113 of Konana Agrahara, 79 of Sarvagna Nagar and 80 of Hoysala Nagar under the comprehensive Development project. The said company sub-contracted the execution of the work to the complainant, working as a Contractor. He completed the work and submitted the bills to the concerned authority. Petitioner, working as Executive Engineer, C.V.Raman Nagar Division, Bengaluru was the competent authority to sanction the bills. When the complainant and his friend Mr. Karthik contacted the petitioner via., whatsapp call, he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for forwarding the bill and refused to accept Rs.5,00,000/-. Unwilling to pay the bribe, a complaint was lodged with the Lokayukta Police. Entrustment mahazar was prepared in the presence of panchas. During trap proceedings conducted on
17.06.2025, petitioner was apprehended while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.
4. The learned Senior counsel contended that the entire investigation does not reveal any demand of bribe by the petitioner. The tainted cash was not recovered from his exclusive possession, on the other hand, recovered from the boot of the car. The said amount was allegedly kept by one Karthik, complainant’s friend and therefore, knowledge on the part of the petitioner cannot be asserted. The alleged conversation between the complainant and petitioner is a matter for trial. The petitioner was arrested on 17.06.2025. He has been interrogated and not required for further interrogation. He is in judicial custody for nearly two months. He is ready and willing to abide by any conditions and will furnish sufficient surety to ensure his regular presence before the trial Court.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has filed statement of objections. He contended that the conversation recorded by the complainant incriminates the petitioner, coupled with recovery of the tainted currency from his possession, showing a prima facie case against him. The hand wash of the accused confirms that he has received bribe from the complainant to do an official favour. He is an influential person, hence, if granted bail, there is likelihood of tampering the prosecution witnesses and destroying vital documents.
6. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant, working as a Contractor, to do an official favour i.e., to sanction the bills in respect of the work undertaken by him, entrusted by the BBMP to M/s BMRG Projects India Pvt. Ltd. Conversations regarding initial demand made through whatsapp calls are said to have been recorded. As per trap mahazar, complainant’s friend by name Karthik approached the petitioner and handed over the bag containing the tainted currency, which was received by the petitioner and kept in the dickey (boot) of the Car. The said bag was then seized at the instance of the petitioner.
7. The prosecution is relying on the telephonic conversations regarding demand of bribe by the petitioner, recovery of the bag containing tainted currency, result of the hand wash of the petitioner and the statements of the witnesses. FSL report with regard to the audio conversation is awaited.
8. According to prosecution, the c
