Mr A R Yashwanth Kumar 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.3/2022 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 the complainant is running the business of liquor and this petitioner is working as a Excise Inspector. That on 24.01.2022, this petitioner called the complainant and stated that someone is intend to open one more liquor shop in your location and an application was also given at Deputy Commissioner’s office and request was made to make the recommendation and he also told that the said person offered the bribe of Rs.2,00,000/- and in order to not to recommend him, this petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant and when the complainant requested to reduce the amount, this petitioner did not agree for the same and on 27.01.2022, again this petitioner called the complainant and told that other person has agreed to give an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and insisted the complainant to give an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Based on the complaint, this petitioner was trapped while collecting the amount of Rs.50,000/- 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 a false allegation is made against this petitioner and there is no prima facie material against him and this petitioner is in custody from the date of arrest and this petitioner is working as the Excise Inspector at Excise 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 respondent-State would submit that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was recovered at the instance of this petitioner and there was a phone conversation between the complainant and the petitioner and this petitioner himself had called the complainant and demanded the amount for not to recommend for any licence and there is a prima facie material against this petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition.

Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material on record and particularly, the phone conversation which was taken place between the petitioner and the complainant and apart from that Rs.1,00,000/- was demanded for not to recommend for any licence and the petitioner himself called twice and demanded the amount and when such being the case and considering the phone conversation and the quantum of amount of Rs.50,000/-was recovered at the time of trap, 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.