Mohan vs The State of Karnataka

Jawad Rahim, J.—Petitioner who is combatant official of the police department facing charge for offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which is under investigation in Crime No. 8/2013 on the file of the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Dharwad, seeks direction to the investigating officer to release him in the event of his arrest. Heard.

Grant of relief is opposed by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Lokayukta.

The prosecution case is Smt. Sophiya Begum Ansari submitted report to the inspector of police, Lokayukta on 25.9.2013 alleging a complaint was submitted against her maternal uncle-Davalsab regarding quarrel between him and his mother. A case was registered in Crime No. 159/2009, which is under investigation. Davalsab was insisting her parents to withdraw the case. On 5.9.2013, in the afternoon when she was alone in her house, it is alleged, Daval Sab entered and held threat to do away with her life, so saying assaulted her to compel her parents to withdraw the case. When she shouted for help, neighbours rescued her. Thereafter, she went to Annigeri Police Station and lodged a report against Daval Sab which was registered in Crime No. 87/2013 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354(B), 504, 507 of IPC.

It is alleged when she lodged the complaint, the petitioner, who was caseworker in the police station refused to give copy of the FIR. Thereafter, on 6.9.2013 he visited her house and prepared a panchanama and took photographs and asked her to bring certain documents. Again on 10.9.2013 when she sent one Mehboobsab to obtain property extract, the petitioner is stated to have demanded Rs. 3,000/- for issue of the copy of the FIR lest, he would not take any action and also threatened he would file a counter case against her. On her report, a trap was arranged. During the trap suspecting the presence of Lokayukta officials, he scaled the wall and escaped. He is not yet arrested. In the circumstances, he seeks bail.

As could be seen from the detailed averments in the complaint, the petitioner who was police constable in charge of the case in Annigeri police station has demanded Rs. 3,000/- for showing official favour and after receiving bait money he escaped. In the circumstances, as his presence is required for interrogation, grant of anticipatory bail may not be justified.

The material so far called shows instead of protecting the law by taking proper action it appears he has indulged in demanding bribe virtually to frustrate action. In the circumstances, I do not find justification to grant anticipatory bail. However, if he surrenders and seeks bail before the court below, it shall be considered. With the above observation, the petition is rejected.