D.K. Lingaraju vs State Of Karnataka

H.P. Sandesh, J

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.4/2022 registered by ACB Police Station, Mysuru for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner along with other accused person demanded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- at the first instance and again an amount of Rs.50,000/- was demanded to disburse the subsidy amount and an amount of Rs.25,000/- was collected as an advance and asked to pay the balance amount. Based on the complaint, this petitioner was trapped while collecting the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the mahazar was also drawn in that regard and bait money was recovered at the instance of this petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court already enlarged accused No.2 on bail and there is a specific allegation against this petitioner and accused No.2 that they have demanded the money and this petitioner is in custody from 01.02.2022 and this petitioner is working as the Joint Director at Industries and Commerce department, the question of fleeing from the justice does not arise and with regard to the recovery is concerned, it is a matter of trial and prayed to allow the petition.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State would submit that there is a prima facie case against this petitioner and he was trapped at the time of collecting the bait money and the said offence is against the society at large and though the said offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail and prayed to dismiss the petition.

Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material on record it discloses that the petitioner is working as the Joint Director at Industries and Commerce department and the amount was demanded to release the subsidy and also the quantum of amount accepted is Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of trap and when such being the case, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that accused No.2 enlarged on bail and the same is not a ground to enlarge this petitioner on bail for the reason that the there is no prima facie allegation against accused No.2 but in the case on hand, there is a demand as well as acceptance of the bait money from this petitioner and hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C unless the investigation is completed.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The bail petition is rejected.

The petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court after filing of charge-sheet.