Venkatesh Y vs State By Anti Corruption Bureau Ramanagara

S.Vishwajith Shetty, J

Petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.03/2022 registered by the respondent-Police for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has approached this court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail.

Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are:

On 21.03.2022, the complainant Jayachandra Gowda, son of Basavaraju had approached the respondent-Police and lodged a complaint alleging that he is a B.E. Computer Science Graduate and he had applied for the post of Chief Executive Officer in Makali Milk Producers’ Co-operative Society Limited. For the purpose of recommending his name for appointment, the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ramanagara Sub-Division, allegedly sought for a bribe amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant allegedly gave him a sum of Rs.8,000/-, Rs.4,000/-, Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- on various dates and on 03.03.2022, he allegedly gave another sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner, who had demanded for a further sum of Rs.90,000/- from the complainant. This demand was allegedly recorded in his mobile. Based on the complaint lodged on 21.03.2022, a FIR was registered in Crime No.03/2022 and a trap was laid on the very same day at about 04.30 p.m. and the petitioner was caught at Railway Station with Rs.90,000/- in his pocket and on the very same day, he was arrested and produced before the jurisdictional court. The petitioner’s bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara was dismissed on 7th April 2022. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 57 years and he has got some medical ailments. He submits that the investigation in the case is almost complete and since the petitioner has been arrested subsequent to trap laid by the respondent-Police, his custody is no more required. He submits that the petitioner is a government servant and therefore, the apprehension that he may flee from justice is not justifiable. Accordingly, he prays to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Per contra, learned Special P.P. for the respondent, who has filed his statement of objections opposing the bail application seriously, submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he is likely to tamper the evidence of prosecution witnesses and prays to dismiss the petition.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record.

The petitioner has been arrested on 21.03.2022 pursuant to a trap laid by the respondent-Police and ever since then, he is in custody. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the major portion of the investigation is already complete and the petitioner’s custody is no more required for the purpose of investigation. The petitioner is aged about 57 years and it is also not in dispute that he is a government servant. The apprehension of the respondent that the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence of prosecution witnesses can be taken care of by imposing conditions on the petitioner while enlarging him on bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

The Petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail in Crime No.03/2022 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ramanagara, for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, subject to following conditions:

(1) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Police Station/jurisdictional court;

(2) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly;

(3) The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on all hearing dates unless his appearance is exempted by the said court for valid reasons.

(4) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and appear before him as and when required.