Sri B.N. Rajanna vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—In this petition filed u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure., the Petitioner has sought for an order to enlarge him on bail in connection with Crime No. 59/2010 on the file of the Lokayukta Police, Bangalore City Division, Bangalore.

According to the case of the prosecution, the Petitioner while working as Assistant Executive Engineer, 4th North Sub Division, BESCOM, Peenya 2nd Stage, Bangalore, demanded bribe of Rs. 75,000/-from Sri. M.G. Nataraj, an Electrical Contractor for sanctioning additional power to M/s. G.R.V. Merchandizing, 4th Phase Peenya, Bangalore and out of the said amount of Rs. 75,000/-, the Petitioner collected an advance of Rs. 2,000/- on 6.12.2010. The complainant not willing to pay the bribe filed complaint before the Police Inspector, City Division, Lokayukta, Bangalore, who arranged for a trap. On 8.12.2010, the complainant went to the office of the Petitioner along with marked currency notes smeared with Phenopthalin powder. At that time, the Petitioner after questioning the complainant as to whether he has brought the money, directed the complainant to keep the money in the table-draw. Accordingly, the complainant kept the marked currency notes in the table-draw of the accused. Thereafter, the accused took out the money and gave it to the cashier Sri Narasimhaiah to count the same. At that time, the officials of the Lokayukta went inside the office of the accused and seized the marked currency notes, which were in the possession of Narasimhaiah and when the hands of the accused were washed, the solution turned into pink. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and was produced before the Jurisdictional Court and was remanded to judicial custody.

Thus, according to the case of the prosecution, the accused being a public servant for discharge of his official duty, demanded and accepted illegal gratification, therefore he has committed aforesaid offences. Application filed by the Petitioner for grant of bail before the Special Court came to be rejected only on the ground that the Petitioner being a public servant, if released on bail, is likely to tamper the prosecution witness by using his influence and official position, therefore, he is not entitled for the bail.

The petition is opposed by the Respondent. I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

The learned Counsel For the Petitioner contended that there is no prima facie evidence to indicate that the Petitioner has committed the offences alleged as even according to the case of the prosecution, the marked currency notes were not recovered from the possession of Petitioner. He further contended that having regard to the specific case of the prosecution that the complainant placed the marked currency notes in the table draw of the Petitioner/accused question of hands of the Petitioner, when washed, turning into pink is a mystery, therefore there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of the offences alleged. He farther contended that assuming for the purpose of arguments, the materials on record prima facie indicate that the Petitioner is guilty of the offences, having regard to the fact that offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment, the Petitioner is entitled for bail. He submits that having regard to the nature of evidence, the Petitioner cannot tamper any such evidence.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the Petitioner being a public servant has demanded and accepted huge amount of Rs. 75,000/-as bribe for sanctioning supply of additional power, therefore he is not entitled for grant of bail.

According to the contents of the trap mahazar, soon after the complainant went inside the office of the Petitioner, as per the directions of the Petitioner, marked currency notes were kept in the table-draw of the Petitioner and thereafter the complainant came out from the office and gave prearranged signal to the officials of the Lokayukta and thereafter the officials came inside and caught hold of the accused and recovered the marked currency notes. Even according to the case of the prosecution, when the officials of the Lokayukta came inside the office of the Petitioner, the marked currency notes were in the hands of the cashier Narasimhaiah. However, according to the statement of Narasimhaiah, the accused gave money to him for the purpose of counting and that is how the money was in his possession. The complainant is an electrical contractor who regularly visits the office of the accused.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and since the offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and since the Petitioner has been in judicial custody for last 20 days the Petitioner is entitled for an order of bail. Having regard to the nature of evidence, the chances of Petitioner tampering prosecution witness is highly remote. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the punishment provided for the same, the Petitioner is entitled for bail.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with Cr. No. 59/2010 on the file of Lokayukta Police, Bangalore City Division, Bangalore subject to the following conditions :

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional court;

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

iii) The Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when required and shall cooperate in the investigation of the case;

iv) The Petitioner shall not leave State of Karnataka till the completion of investigation.