High CourtsSingle Bench

SRI.SHABBEER AHMED vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 5 January 2018 · Citation: (2018) 01 KAR CK 0131

HON’BLE JUDGES
Budihal R.B.
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-438>Section 438</a> - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest · <a href=6460>Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988</a>, <a href=6460-7>Section 7</a>, <a href=6460-13>S
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
9633 of 2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

33 paragraphs · 648 words
1.

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to

release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act registered in respondent police station Crime No.7/2017.

2.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

3.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

4.

No doubt, looking to the allegations made in the complaint, there are allegations that accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded bribe amount for

attending the work of the complainant and in the year 2013 itself such demand was made by accused No.2, he demanded Rs.15,000/- for himself

and Rs.20,000/- for accused No.1/Asst. Commissioner to attend the said work. The materials show that subsequently, i.e., in the year 2017 when

the complainant approached accused No.1/Asst. Commissioner with the money, accused No.1 refused to receive the money. The materials also

show that even accused No.2 returned the money, which was said to have been received in the year 2013.

5.

Looking to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application, it is observed that petitioner remained absconding and

not cooperated with investigation of the case. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the mahazar

proceedings, which is produced as per Annexure-D, and submitted that in connection with identifying and ascertaining the voice, the contents of

the said mahazar clearly show the presence of petitioner/accused No.2 before ACB Police during investigation. In view of such mention made in

the said mahazar proceedings, it cannot be said that petitioner remained absconding and not cooperated with the investigation agency.

6.

Learned Spl.PP. appearing on behalf of respondent/ACB while opposing the petition has submitted that investigating agency asked the

petitioner to put his signature on the mahazar proceedings, but petitioner refused to put his signature on the same.

7.

Firstly such signature of accused No.2 on the mahazar is not required, even if the petitioner had refuse to put his signature, but the contents of

the said mahazar clearly show his presence along with ACB Police during investigation. Therefore, the observations made by the Sessions Judge

while rejecting the bail application are not in accordance with the materials placed on record. Apart from that, in the petition, it is contended by the

petitioner that he is innocent and not demanded any bribe amount. Petitioner has also undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this

Court. The alleged offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of P.C. Act are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The

apprehension of the prosecution is that petitioner may not cooperate with investigating agency, for this apprehension, reasonable conditions can be

imposed on the petitioner, which will safeguard the interests of the respondent/ACB Police. Hence, petition is allowed . The respondent-Police is

directed to enlarge the present petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act registered in respondent police station Crime No.7/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting

authority.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner has to appear before the Investigating agency as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation in the matter.

iv. The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the

surety bond.