AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.P. Sandesh, J
This bail petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.60/2022 of High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a)(c), 7A, Section 13(1)(a), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.
Heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the State.
This Court earlier rejected the bail petition of this petitioner in Criminal Petition No.5396/2022 vide order dated 22.7.2022 during crime stage. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the Sessions Court after filing of additional charge sheet against him wherein he has been arrayed as accused No.42. The Trial Court while rejecting the bail petition of this petitioner made an observation that this court already rejected the bail petition of this petitioner and other accused i.e. accused Nos.30, 34 and this petitioner and also observed that the Hon’ble High Court by its detail discussion seriously observed the nature of allegations made against them in other criminal petitions that too after filing of the charge sheet and hence he cannot claim the bail on the ground of parity as of right, since the acts allegedly did by them in the commission of offences are not one and the same, but in different capacities.
The counsel in support of his arguments vehemently contend that the earlier petition is not considered after filing of the charge and the same was during the crime stage and the observation made by the Sessions Court is erroneous. The counsel also vehemently contend that no recovery is made at the instance of this petitioner and also the counsel would vehemently contend that from Head Constable who has been arrayed as accused No.28, a recovery was made to the extent of 3 Crores 11 lakhs and he has been enlarged on bail. The counsel also vehemently contend that this Court granted bail against accused No.31 i.e. Dy.S.P. vide order dated 3.10.2023 and main accusation is made against him. The counsel also produced copy of the order passed in Criminal Petition No.4848/2023 c/w Criminal Petition No.5123/2023 and Criminal Petition No.7037/2023. The counsel also vehemently contend that ADGP who has been arrayed as accused No.35 has also been enlarged on bail in Criminal Petition No.3696/2023 vide order dated 25.9.2023. The counsel also would vehemently contend that though case was registered on 27.10.2022, this petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.42 and he was not an accused in the FIR and subsequently his name has been implicated. The counsel also would vehemently contend that only based on the voluntary statement he has been arrayed as an accused and when there is no recovery at the instance of the petitioner and no prima facie material against this petitioner, he may be enlarged on bail, since other accused against whom a serious allegation has been made have also enlarged on bail. The counsel also vehemently contend that this petitioner recently subjected to spinal-cord operation i.e. L5 and L6 and now he is taking rest and on medical ground also he is entitled for bail and he is ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State would vehemently contend that when the case was registered, immediately he was absconded for a period of 11 months and he was arrested only on 28.3.2023. This petitioner has not assisted during the investigation and only he has been secured after the issuance of proclamation and attachment of property belongs to him and thereafter investigation is conducted and mobile is also seized at the instance of this petitioner. The same is also sent to the FSL and FSL report is awaited. The counsel also vehemently contend that, in a nature of case like this the Court cannot expect direct evidence against the petitioner herein. This petitioner being the PSI had indulged in collecting the amount from the aspirants of PSI and also collected lakhs of rupees on different occasions and also OMR sheet of accused No.4 was collected by this petitioner and the same was sent through accused No.29 and the same was replaced in the strong room where the OMR sheets are kept in custody. The said OMR sheet of accused No.4 from whom the amount was collected by this petitioner was also sent to the FSL and FSL report is also positive that OMR sheet is manipulated. When these are the materials available before the Court and apart from that he has been absconded for a period of 11 months, he cannot be enlarged on bail since these types of series of offences are committed in a process of recruitment and hence the Court has to take note of the gravity of the offence as well as it is an impact on the Society. Hence, he is not entitled for bail.
Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the State and also on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the police have registered a case and investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. No doubt additional charge sheet is filed against this petitioner subsequent to his arrest on 28.3.2023 and also records discloses that he was absconded from the date of registration of the case and also it is not in dispute that he was not assisted the Investigating Officer when the investigation was conducted. No doubt, though his name is not in the FIR, but he had already approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.5396/2022 seeking anticipatory bail and this Court rejected his bail petition vide order dated 22.7.2022. No doubt this Court while rejecting the earlier petition made an observation that, presence of the petitioner is required and probe is required to investigating the matter and bring the real culprit in the case. The Sessions Court rejected the bail petition on the ground that this Court already considered the matter of this petitioner and an observation is made that rejection is after filing of the charge sheet and the same is not correct. This Court earlier rejected the bail petition during the crime stage in the month of July 2022 i.e. immediately after registration of the case.
Having considered the material available on record and statement of objections filed by the respondent and also the submission of the respondent’s counsel and the very contention that the Court cannot expect the direct evidence, no doubt the counsel appearing for the respondent/State brought to notice of this Court the accusation made against this petitioner and in terms of the said accusation, an allegation made against this petitioner who being the PSI had indulged in collecting the amount from accused No.4 along with accused No.40 and on several occasions amount was collected and also OMR sheet was also collected from accused No.4 and FSL report confirms that there is a manipulation of OMR sheet.
In the case on hand, it has to be noted that, no doubt there is no recovery of amount at his instance and also counsel for the petitioner brought to notice of this Court that accused No.28 from whom Crores of rupees was recovered also enlarged on bail and main accused Nos.31 and 35 who are in the helm of affairs of conducting the examination were also enlarged on bail by this Court. No doubt the counsel appearing for the State also brought to notice of this Court that other accused persons were enlarged on bail on the ground that they were in custody for longer period. This petitioner was also in custody from 28.3.2023 and no recovery was made at the instance of this petitioner and only accusation is made against this petitioner that he had indulged in collecting amount from accused No.4. No doubt the accused No.4 also got through in the said examination and also there is a manipulation of the OMR sheet, the same requires a detailed trial and when there is no direct evidence against this petitioner, except he had conspired and indulged in collecting the money from accused No.4 along with accused No.40 and having considered almost all accused have been enlarged on bail except accused Nos.30 and 34 and this petitioner being a Government servant working as PSI, question of fleeing away from justice for trial does not arise. Hence, it is a matter of trial with regard to the accusation made against him and hence, this petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity and this Court can imposed conditions in order to protect the interest of the prosecution.
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.42 shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.60/2022 of High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru City, pending on the file of XXIII Additional city Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru, subject to following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
ii. Petitioner shall furnish proof of his residential address and shall inform the Court, if there is any change in the address;
iii. Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
iv. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and shall not influence or intimidate any of the Investigating Officers of this case.
v. Petitioner shall not travel outside India without prior permission of the jurisdictional Court.
vi. Petitioner shall co-operate with the further investigation of the case, if any.
vii. Petitioner shall appear before the trail Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted for any genuine reason.
The observations made in this order are confined to the disposal of this petition and shall not influence trial of the case in anyway.