This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying

to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.06/2023 of

Lokayukta Police Station, Mandya registered for the offence

punishable under Section 7(a) of PC Act, 1988.

2.

Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for

petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for

respondent - Lokayukta police and perused the material on

record.

3.

The learned counsel for respondent has filed

statement of objections.

4.

The petitioner/accused No.1 working as a Tahsildar,

Pandavapura and accused No.2 working as a revenue inspector

- 3 -

are alleged to have demanded and accepted a bribe of

Rs.40,000/-

from

the

complainant

on

22.06.2023

at

Pandavapura Taluk Office situated at Ground Floor, Mini

Vidhana Soudha.

5.

Complaint is lodged with the Lokayukta police,

Mandya by one Mariswamy M., working as a Village Accountant

in Gummanahalli and Bannangadi Circle, alleging demand of

bribe by the petitioner. Based on the said complaint, case was

registered against the petitioner and a trap was laid. On

22.06.2023, the petitioner is alleged to have received the bribe

amount of Rs.40,000/- from the petitioner and then gave it to

accused No.2 - Revenue Inspector. The Lokayukta police have

recovered the said amount from accused No.2. Both the

accused were arrested and produced before the jurisdictional

Court and remanded to judicial custody.

6.

The material on record reveal that the complainant

was appointed as a Village Accountant on 10.02.2017 and he

was deputed to different places. In the revised Official

Memorandum

dated

02.12.2022,

he

was

deputed

to

Gummanahalli and Bannangadi Circle. Due to his personal

- 4 -

inconvenience, he requested the petitioner, working as a

Tahsildar to depute him to Doddaboganahalli. However, the

request was not considered, on the other hand, accused

demanded bribe to do the work. It is alleged in the complaint

that on 20.06.2023 at about 7.00 p.m., the complainant met

the petitioner along with accused No.2 and recorded the

conversation between them in a voice recorder and then lodged

the complaint to the Lokayukta police.

7.

As per trap mahazar dated 22.06.2023, accused

No.1 received the tainted currency from the complainant and

then handed it over to accused No.2, from whom it was

recovered by the Lokayukta Police in the presence of Panch

witnesses under a mahazar. The trap mahazar shows that a

total sum of Rs.75,000/- was seized from accused No.2. Out of

which, Rs.40,000/- pertains to the present case. Insofar as the

petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned, a sum of Rs.6,500/- was

found near her table. However, the said amount was not

seized since it was nothing to do with the bait money.

8.

It is contended by the learned Senior counsel for

the petitioner that the hand solution insofar as petitioner is

- 5 -

concerned has not turned to pink colour and therefore, the

allegation that

petitioner

has

received

bribe

from

the

complainant is false.

9.

Learned Spl. PP appearing for respondent has

contended that the petitioner after receiving the amount has

immediately handed it over to accused No.2 and she wiped her

hand with her chudidar top and therefore, when her fingers

dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, it did not turn pink in

colour but the solution turned pink in colour, when the chudidar

top was dipped in the solution.

10.

The learned Spl. PP has further contended that the

trap has been successful and tainted amount has been

recovered in this case and the petitioner being a public servant

working as a Tahasildar has received illegal gratification of

Rs.40,000/- from the complainant and handed over the same

to accused No.2. He contends that grant of bail to the

petitioner may come in the way of investigation and she may

tamper with the evidence and there is possibility of fleeing from

justice.

- 6 -

11.

It is contended by the learned Senior counsel for

petitioner that the complainant, with an ulterior motive has

foisted a false