Nagaraj vs State Of Karnataka

Rajendra Badamikar, J

The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking for regular bail in Crime No.18/2024 of Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Urban, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and amended Act, pending on the file of the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.

The allegations of the prosecution disclose that the complainant is running a Private Gas Agency and ACP of Peenya Sub-Division summoned him on the ground that he is doing business of supplying gas in his area illegally. When the first informant approached him, the ACP is said to have demanded Rs.2 lakhs in order to do such a business within his jurisdiction. When he came out of the office of the ACP along with the petitioner/accused No.1, who is the driver of the ACP and accused No.2, who is the Head Constable said to have demanded Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively towards their share independently. A regular call was being made by both the accused to the first informant and hence he has lodged a complaint against the petitioner/accused No.1 and other accused on 26.03.2024. A trap was laid down and Investigating Officer has drawn a entrustment Mahazar and then they proceeded to trap. It is alleged that the petitioner/accused No.1 was trapped while receiving Rs.50,000/- from the first informant and same was recorded in a Trap Mahazar. Then the statement of the petitioner/accused No.1 was said to have been recorded, wherein he asserted that as per instructions of accused No.2, he called the first informant and as per the instructions of accused No.2, he demanded the amount, but the accused No.2 is alleged to have been disputed the claim. However, the tainted amount was said to have been recovered and the hand wash of the petitioner was taken, which has shown positive to Phenolphthalein test. The Trap Mahazar was also drawn and petitioner/accused No.1 was arrested and produced before Special Judge. He was remanded to the custody.

Then he has approached the learned Special Judge seeking regular bail and bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-Lokayuktha. Perused the records.

The allegations discloses that petitioner/accused No.1 is working as a driver to ACP of Peenya Sub-Division. The allegations further disclose that the first informant was doing Private Gas Business and ACP is alleged to have demanded Rs.2 lakhs from him so as to continue his business within his jurisdiction. The allegations are that ACP has demanded Rs.2 lakhs while the accused No.2 is alleged to have demanded Rs.25,000/- and the present petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 is said to have demanded Rs.10,000/- monthly. The tainted amount is alleged to have been recovered from the custody of the petitioner/accused No.1. There is prima facie material evidence in the form of Trap Mahazar regarding recovery of amount from the custody of the petitioner/accused No.1. Hence, Under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the presumption is in favour of prosecution.

However, records also disclose that the petitioner/accused No.1 was already interrogated and his statement was also recorded. The tainted amount is also recovered and the major portion of the investigation is already concluded. Admittedly, the petitioner/accused No.1 is only a driver and he does not have any authority to control any law and order or any business which takes place within the jurisdiction of ACP. The records disclose that now the prosecution is awaiting for FSL Report on the basis of which the sanction is required to be obtained. Hence, the major portion of the investigation is concluded and considering the status of petitioner/accused No.1, question of he tampering the prosecution witnesses regarding FSL Report or sanction does not arise at all.

At the same time, it is also interesting to note here that complete allegations where directed against the ACP demanding Rs.2 lakhs and subsequent demand by the present petitioner/accused No.1 and other accused to the extent of Rs.35,000/-. However, the Investigating Officer did not lodge any FIR against ACP, who is alleged to have demanded Rs.2 lakhs but he has only prosecuted the petitioner/accused No.1 and other accused. Why the ACP was spared and what is statement recorded by ACP is not at all forthcoming. As the complaint allegations specifically allege that ACP has demanded Rs.2 lakhs, it is evident that the Investigating Officer has also not acted bonafiedly and he intends to conceal the material evidence in this regard. Looking to these facts and circumstances and considering the fact that presence of the petitioner/accused No.1 is no more required by the investigating agency, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor can be meted-out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

I. The petition is allowed.

II. The petitioner/accused No.1 is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.18/2024 of Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Urban, registered for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) and 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending on the file of the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru, on he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that,-

(i) He shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities

(ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

(iii) He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.

(iv) He shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter.

(v) He shall Mark his attendance before SHO on every first and third Monday between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. until the final report is submitted.