IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 7259/2019 BETWEEN 1. LOKESH @ BEVOREGOWDA S/O DODDABETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS WATER SUPPLY WORK R/NO.33, NEAR KOODLU SHIVA TEMPLE BENGALURU-560034 2. GOVINDARAJU @ GOVINDA S/O CHINNARAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WATERMAN WORK IN BBMP R/A NO.53, VEERAPPA REDDY LAYOUT 1ST CROSS, 14TH MAIN ROAD NEAR PUMPHOUSE PARAPPANAAGRAHARA BENGALURU-560068 3. KRISHNA KUMAR S/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS LIC AGENT, R/A NO. 38, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE ROOPENA AGRAHARA BENGALURU-560034 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R. RAKSHITH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. SHANKARAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. N. JAGADEESH., SPL.P.P) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.29/2019 OF ANTI- CORRUPTION BUREAU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss. 7(a), 7(A) AND 8 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Sri. B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Special PP for the respondent-Anti Corruption Bureau (for short, ‘ACB’) has filed objection to this Petition and seriously objected for granting of bail so far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special PP for the Respondent – ACB. Perused the records.
3. The allegations made against the petitioners herein (A1, A2 & A4) in brief are that, the complainant by name A.P. Govindappa has lodged a complaint stating that, he has constructed a four floor building at Singasandra, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. It is alleged that, Accused No.1 posing himself as a Junior Engineer of BBMP office, has called the son of the complainant and told him to go to the BBMP Office along with the documents pertaining to the alleged building Accordingly, the complainant and his son-Pramod went to Accused No.1 and met him and in fact, he stated that, since no permission was obtained from the BBMP for construction of the building, the entire building will be demolished and for managing the things for not to demolish the building, he demanded Rs.3,00,000/- illegal gratification for not forwarding the objections filed with reference to the construction of building of the complainant. Later the complainant met Accused No.3- Puttanna @ Puttaswamy and asked him stating that Accused No.1 is demanding Rs.3,00,000/- for not forwarding objections and then, he instructed Accused No.1 to reduce the amount of illegal gratification to Rs.1,50,000/-. On 11.09.2019, Accused No.2, who was working as a waterman, on an instruction of Accused No.1, went to the alleged premises of the complainant and directed to stop further construction until he pay the said amount to Accused No.1. Since the complainant did not want to pay any bribe amount, he lodged a complaint before the respondent-ACB.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that, trap has been laid against Accused No.1 and during the course of investigation, an amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash and Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cheque has been seized from the custody of Accused No.1.
5. Looking to the nature of allegations and the facts of the case, in my opinion, the offence alleged under Sections 7(a) and 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act are not either punishable with the sentence of death or imprisonment for life. The other allegation made by the respondent that the Accused No.1 is in the habit of impersonating himself as Junior Engineer in BBMP and collect lot of money from the public at large and therefore, the further investigation is required so far as this person is concerned and he pleaded for rejection of bail petition specifically against Accused No.1. However, the complaint averments does not disclose the said allegations against Accused No.1 and no such other complaint is lodged against him by anybody else in order to substantiate the said allegations made in the present complaint to find-out whether the bail requires to be granted to him or not.
6. The role of Accused No.2 in the alleged act is that, on 11.09.2019 Accused No.2 visited the house of the complainant and demanded to pay the bribe amount to Accused No.1 and instructed him to stop the construction work until he paid the said bribe amount. The role of Accused No.4 in the alleged offence is that, when the complainant tried to give Rs.50,000/- to Accused No.1, he instructed the complainant to hand over the said amount to Accused No.4 and accordingly, the complainant handed over Rs.50,000/- to Accused No.4 and he received the same.
7. It is submitted that the petitioners (A1, A2 and A4) have already been arrested on 17.09.2019 and since then, they are in judicial custody. That itself discloses that they are no more required for any further investigation. The abscondence of co-accused cannot be a sufficient ground to refuse to grant bail to these petitioners. However, it is made clear that, after the release, if the petitioners-1 to 3 (A1, A2 & A4) indulge themselves in tampering the prosecution witnesses or tried to screen the other accused persons and violate any of the conditions that may be imposed by this court, the respondent-ACB is at liberty to move the court for cancellation of bail.
8. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 (A2 and A3) are only facilitators to Petitioner No.1 (A1) and there is no allegation against them with regard to they personally demanding or receiving any amount. Therefore, the petitioners 1 to 3 (A1, A2 & A4) are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following,-
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners 1 to 3 (A1, A2 & A4) shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.29/2019 registered by ACB Police, Bengaluru City against them for the alleged offences, now pending on the file of XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Each of the petitioners shall execute their respective personal bonds for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission, till the case registered against them is disposed of.
vi) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a week i.e., on Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet or for a period of two months, whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE KGR*