Ideya Vendan R. vs State of Karnataka

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Petitioners in all these cases are accused in a criminal case in Crime No. 60/14 on the file of Bengaluru City Lokayukta police for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption, 1988. They apprehend arrest at the hands of the Lokayukta police and hence have filed these anticipatory bail applications under Section 438, Cr.P.C. after similar bail applications filed on their behalf before the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru Urban District, have been dismissed on 28.1.2015.

Learned counsel representing the Lokayukta has filed detailed objections.

The petitioner in Crl. P. 620/15 is 5th accused. The petitioner in Crl. P. 648/15 is 2nd accused. The petitioners in Crl. P. 663/15 are accused Nos. 3 and 4 and the petitioner in Crl. P. 748/15 is the 1st accused in the above case. The facts leading to the filing of the bail applications under Section 438, Cr.P.C. before this court are as follows:

"a) On the basis of a written complaint lodged by Y.H. Srinivas of Brashtachara Virodhi Vedike, a forum opposing corruption, alleging that certain officials mentioned in the complaint along with others were found to be in possession of innumerable Government files and documents in a private residence bearing No. 76/10, ''Lavalavike'', 2nd Main Road, Vyalikaval, Bengaluru, and certain private persons were found to be preparing files relating to various contract works of BBMP to the tune of Rs. 120 crores. It is alleged that hundreds of files and registers and office seals were found in the private residence. The same is stated to be against the regulations of the Government.

b) On registering the case, search was conducted by the Lokayukta police and the police were informed that the files had been brought for photocopying documents/files in view of the order from higher officials to complete the same by 21.12.2014. At the time of search, no xerox copying machines were found at the place and there was no physical evidence to show that the above files were being xeroxed. At the time of search, two central processing units and a few seals were seized.

c) During the course of investigation, the Lokayukta police have come to know that the house belongs to one lady, Manjula, wife of Muniratna who is a sitting Member of Karnataka Legislative Assembly from Rajarajeshwarinagar constituency. The said Muniratna represents Rajarajeshwari Assembly constituency and he was a Class I contractor in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP, for short).

d) During the search, certain documents and files along with ledgers of a fictitious construction company were also seized. The preliminary leads, according to the prosecution has established a larger conspiracy which could be directly connected to the presence of huge number of BBMP files in a private residence in order to prepare fake bills and fabricated documents.

e) It is alleged that the police have come to know that some more persons could be connected with the preparation of fake bills in respect of works not at all executed and release of amount estimated to be to the tune of Rs. 120 crores."

Petitioners have undertaken to obey any condition which may be imposed on them and have agreed to co-operate with the I.O. in conducting further investigation and there is no scope for them to abscond. Thus the learned advocates for the petitioners have requested the court to grant anticipatory bail imposing proper conditions deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned counsel representing Lokayukta has vehemently argued that the petitioners will have to be subjected to serious interrogation and the same cannot be done without taking them into custody. He has further argued that initial clues indicate about a larger conspiracy and involvement of some more persons. If the petitioners are granted bail, it would scuttle further prompt and serious investigation. Hence he has requested the court to dismiss the petition.

After going through the records and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following common point for consideration of this court is:

"Whether the petitioners are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail at this stage in the present case?" REASONS

The statement of Muniratna, sitting MLA of Rajarajeshwari Assembly constituency has been recorded on 18.2.2015. He was a Class I contractor of the BBMP prior to getting elected as MLA. According to him, Rs. 20-22 crores has been released for effecting necessary works in his constituency. According to him, on 10.12.2014, he had received a message from one Mr. Vishwas, in charge executive engineer and his permission had been sought to furnish certain documents by the ruling party, Mr. Ramesh. He is stated to have instructed the concerned to issue necessary copies under the Right to Information Act. According to him, Vishwas had sought permission to take out copies of the documents by using the house of the MLA and he had instructed the said Vishwas to use his residence at Vyalikaval, and therefore the files were being taken to his residence at Vyalikaval to get xerox copies. According to him, BBMP officials were using his residence at Vyalikaval on his permission and that nothing could be imputed in this regard.

According to him, Ideya Vendan and other officials were known to him for a long time since he was a contractor in the BBMP for several years. He has feigned ignorance about the presence of Jayaram, Neeraj Sridhar and Raghavendra when the raid was conducted on 27.12.2014 and that they were close to him.

It is ununderstandable as to how more than 1,000 files belonging to the BBMP could have been in a private residence belonging to the wife of a sitting MLA who was the erstwhile contractor of BBMP. It is not as though BBMP does not have sufficient space in Bengaluru for the purpose of keeping a few xerox machines and to take out copies. As argued by the learned counsel representing Lokayukta, if the files had been kept for taking out xerox copies, some copying machines should have been there and in that case, they should have been seized by the police at the time of conducting raid. Apart from this, several seals of the officials of BBMP were also found in the said house.

Even the 5th accused-Smt Shailaja has given statement before the Lokayukta police that the files had been kept on the instructions of her higher-ups and she has undertaken to assist the police in conducting further investigation.

The two computer CPUs have also been seized The hard disk of these computers disclose that the number of files had been typed in the computer. Four rubber stamps have been seized and out of them, three are in English and one in Kannada. Two seals relate to the Executive Engineer, Rajarajeshwarinagar Division, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore-560 072, and another seal bears the following inscription:

"Audited and admitted for Rs. ..... Passed by cheque for Rs. .......... By adjustment............

Account Superintendent, Rajarajeshwarinagar Division, BBMP

In another seal the words ''Executive Engineer'' are found.

The statement of the 1st accused-Ideya Vandan discloses it was not possible for them to get xerox copies of these documents in the office at Rajarajeshwannagar as several contractors and public would come to the office and therefore it had been shifted to the private residence at Vyalikaval on the instructions of higher-ups. It is not known as to why Jayaram, Neeraj Sridhar and C. Raghavendra, private persons were present in the said house at the time of conducting raid.

The presence of huge number of files belonging to the BBMP, more particularly relating to different civil contract works of Rajarajeshwannagar were found in the house of the very wife of the erstwhile contractor who is now a sitting MLA of the said constituency. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Lokayukta, a thorough and dispassionate investigation will have to be conducted to unearth more details which could disclose a larger controversy. The presence of these files belonging to the BBMP and the seals and computers in a private residence appears to be most unnatural.

Learned counsel representing Lokayukta has submitted that the wife of the sitting MLA has not co-operated with Lokayukta in spite of issuing notice. Except Shailaja, all other accused persons are senior officers of the BBMP. It is ununderstandable as to how senior engineers of BBMP could request a sitting MLA to provide his house for the purpose of obtaining copies of files by using Xerox machines. It is also ununderstandable as to how the said MLA could allow the persons to make use of the house of his wife, even if it is found to be true. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for Lokayukta, this is only a tip of the iceberg.

The investigation is still at a nascent stage and the petitioners have to be seriously interrogated so as to proceed further in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the offences are exclusively triable by the learned special judge and the maximum punishment could extent upto 7 years and that the offences are neither punishable with death nor with imprisonment for life.

It is not the question of sentence that is relevant in a case like this. The question that arises before this court is as to how such huge files could be found in a private residence relating to the civil works to the tune of Rs. 120 crores of BBMP. A serious suspicion arises in the light of the seizure of four seals and two computers and hard disk. The question that arises is as to whether these high ranking officers had sought the permission of the Commissioner of BBMP to use the house of the wife of a sitting MLA for the purpose of obtaining copies of files, more particularly when the BBMP has sufficient place in other offices. Even otherwise, the house which was raised is six kilometers away from the BBMP ward office of Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bengaluru.

Insofar as SmtShailaja (5th accused) is concerned, she is a lady and has a small child. She has given a statement that she is willing to obey any condition that may be imposed. She is not a high ranking. Official, but is working on the instructions of Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer. Therefore a lenient view has to be taken insofar as SmtShailaja is concerned.

Insofar as the other accused are concerned, they need to be thoroughly interrogated to unearth many more details and thereafter to proceed further in the investigation. Hence this is not a fit case for granting bail to accused Nos. 2 to 4. Hence Crl. P. Nos. 663/15, 648/15 and 748/15 will have to be dismissed.

In the result, I pass the following order:

ORDER

"I. Crl. P. 620/15 filed by Smt. Shailaja is allowed. She is granted anticipatory bail subject to executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the I.O. She shall surrender on or before 31.3.2015 and shall co-operate with the I.O. in conducting further investigation. She shall attend the office of the I.O. as and when her presence is absolutely required.

II. Crl. Petition Nos. 663/15, 648/15 and 748/15 are dismissed.

III. Notwithstanding the dismissal of these petitions, the petitioners are at liberty to approach this court after they surrender before the respondent police, by filing application under Section 439, Cr.P.C."