0

TASILDAR WHO ACCEPTED BRIBE RELEASED ON BAIL BY HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

In the matter of Sri. Purandara Hegde vs The State on 22 November, 2022(CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10279/2022 A/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10355/2022) presided by THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR it is stated that this criminal petition is filed under section 439 cr.p.c, praying for the bail applicants in cr.no.1/2022 karnataka lokayuktha, mangalore pro offense p/u/s 7(a) of p.c operating in file iii addl. district and sessions judge, d.k. mangalore. 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

These two petitions are filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging them on regular bail in Cr.No.1/2022 of Lokayutha Police Station, Mangalore, D.K., registered for the offence punishable under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, D.K., 

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-Lokayuktha Institution. Perused the records. 

The brief factual matrix leading to the case is that the complainant is the owner of Sy.No.147/9A measuring 19 cents situated in Kavoor village and he wanted to sell the property and therefore, he was in need of NOC from the competent authority. In this regard he approached Mini Vidhana Soudha on number of occasions and moved the application but NOC was not issued. Susbequently, he learnt that the file was pending with accused No.1 i.e., petitioner in Crl.P.No.10355/2022 and on 09.09.2022 when he approached accused No.1, he reported that file is not yet ready. On 12.09.2022 he again contacted accused No.1 and at that time accused No.1 alleged to have demanded Rs.5,700/-. Then the complainant was not interested in paying bribe amount and as such he paid only a token amount of Rs.1,000/- and later on went to Lokayuktha office and lodged a complaint. The complaint came to be registered and FIR came to be issued. Later on trap was laid down on 30.09.2022 in the office and it was found that accused No.1 has received Rs.4,700/- on behalf of accused No.2 and trap was successful. Further, hand wash of accused No.1 was taken for phenolphthalein test and tested positive and then immediate statement was also recorded. Then accused No.2 i.e., petitioner in Crl.P.No.10279/2022 was also arrested and the relevant file was found in his custody and it is alleged that at his instance, accused No.1 has demanded and accepted the bribe. Hence, both were arrested and the investigating officer has drawn the trap mahazar in the office and then produced both the accused before the Court and they are remanded to judicial custody. The petitioners moved a regular bail petition and their bail petition came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, they are before this Court. 

 

JUDGMENT 

After hearing the arguments and perusal of the records, it is prima facie clear that accused no.1 and 2 were working in Revenue Department while accused no.1 was working as FDA who was involved in the file and accused no.2 who was Tahsildar in whose to keep the file he allegedly found. He further states that a dirty amount of Rs.4,700/- was recovered from accused No.1 and his hand wash was also tested positive and instant statement was also recorded. It is true that accused No.1 was found in possession of the tainted amount. No doubt there is no material evidence at this juncture that the demand was with accused No. 2 but the prosecution specifically alleges that the file was in possession of accused No. 2 who was the Tahasildar and he had to appear. the file and the retention of the file for a long time itself presupposes that the request was at his instance. However, the point is that both the petitioners were arrested on 30.09.2022 and the recovery was also completed and trap mahazar was also carried out. The statement of the shadow witness and other panch was also recorded when the trap was conducted and now as the hand wash has been sent to FSL, the report is awaited. Further, it is necessary to obtain a sanction order. The entire investigation is almost closed except for formalities. 

  

The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Lokayuktha would contend that there is every possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses but the entire case is based on documentary evidence and as such the question of tampering does not arise at all. Moreover, both petitioners are civil servants and their escape is not possible. 

  

In view of these facts and circumstances, I find no bar to admitting the appellants to bail. The other concerns raised by the learned Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing certain conditions and therefore both the petitions have to be allowed and therefore I proceed as follows: 

  

ORDER Petitions are allowed. 

Appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 are ordered to be granted bail in connection with Crime No. 1/2022 Lokayutha Police Station, Mangalore, D.K., registered for an offense punishable under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending file III Addl . District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, D.K., on each of them executing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties in like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- 

  

  1. i) Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witnesses;
  2. ii) Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 will not commit similar offences;

iii) The Petitioners/Defendants No. 1 and 2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without the prior consent of the Trial Court; 

  1. iv) Petitioners/Defendants No. 1 and 2 shall appear before the Court on all hearing days unless exempted by special order.

 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHA L NALWAR 

Click here to view the judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *