IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1857/2019 BETWEEN:
Mr. Shameed H Olekar, S/o. Hussain Sab, Aged about 42 years, Residing at No.17, 9th main, 15th Cross, Lakkasandra, Audugodi, Bengaluru-560 027. ...Petitioner (By Sri. H Sunil Kumar, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Anti Corruption Bureau Police, Represented by Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001. ...Respondent (By Sri. B.N.Jagadeesha, SPP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.4/2019 of Anti Corruption Bureau, Ramanagara for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail in Crime No.4/2019 of Anti Corruption Bureau Police Station, Ramanagara District for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.N.Jagadeesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the petitioner-accused is working as a Panchayath Development Officer in Manchanayakanahalli Grama Panchayath, Ramanagara. A complaint was registered by one Sri. C.Ramu, who had approached the petitioner for getting NOC for conversion of his agricultural land into commercial use bearing Sy.No.43/6 measuring 33 guntas. It is further alleged that the petitioner demanded a bride of Rs.1,00,000/- to do Official favour which was sought by the complainant. As the complainant was not willing to bride the petitioner- accused, he filed a complaint. It is further alleged that subsequently, a trap was laid and the petitioner- accused was apprehended and now he is in custody.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner was under suspension and was not on duty and there is no question of he receiving a bribe as an Official of the said Panchayath Development Office. He further submitted that the alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the custodial interrogation is not necessary. There is no question of tampering the evidence by the petitioner- accused, since all the witnesses are Government Officials and accused is also a Government Official and he fleeing away from the justice is not possible. The petitioner-accused is ready to abide by any of the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and release the petitioner-accused on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner- accused is involved in a serious offence of receiving a bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- though he was under suspension. He further submitted that the conversation between the petitioner-accused and the complainant is recorded. There is a prima facie material as against the petitioner for having been involved in the alleged offence. If he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence, he may abscond and indulge in similar type of criminal activities. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. Whether the petitioner-accused was on duty as on the date of the trap, whether he has received a bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the prosecution, is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. The petitioner-accused is working as a Panchayath Development Officer and the alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The investigation and trial may take some more time and the petitioner-accused is not required for any other purpose. If the petitioner-accused is detained in jail, it will amount to nothing but a pre-trial conviction. I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions if the petitioner-accused is released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
In that light, petition is allowed. Petitioner- accused is enlarged on bail in Crime No.4/2019 of Anti Corruption Bureau Police Station, Ramanagara District for the offences punishable under Section 7(1) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner-accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
3. He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., to 5.00 p.m., till the charge sheet is filed.
4. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
Sd/- JUDGE RB