Karnataka High Court
Ravi Prasad S/O Rajanna S vs State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2022
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1 s t DAY OF AUGUST 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.102111/2022
c/w CRIMINAL PETITION No.102086/2022
IN CRL.P.NO.102111/2022
BETWEEN:
RAVI PRASAD S/O RAJANNA S
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RTD ASST EXECUT IVE ENGIN EER,
PWD S UB DIVISI ON,
R/O.# 22 SREE LA XMINARASIMHA NILAYA,
V N RESID ENCY ROAD, CHIKKALASA NDRA,
BANGALURU 61.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADV OCA TE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE POLI CE INSPECTOR,
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU KOPPAL.,
REPRES ENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARW AD.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, SPL PP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO DIRECT THE RESPOND ENT POLICE/AUTHORITIES
TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CON NECTION WITH THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 13( 1)(c), (d) (I) ( II) (III) (2), AND SECTION
15 OF PREV ENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988, SECT ION 406,
2
408, 409, 417, 420, 464, 471, 474, 477, 477(A) , 120(B) OF
IPC 1860, REGIS TERED BY KOPPA L ACB IN THEIR CRIME
NO.3/2016, PEN DING ON THE FILE OF THE D ISTRICT,
SESSIONS AND SPECIA L COURT , KOPPAL, IN SO FOR AS
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED .
IN CRL.P.NO.102086/2022
BETWEEN
1 . LAXMAN S/O ZARA NAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ASST ENGINEER, PWD SUB DIVISION ,
KOPPAL 583231.
2 . SELVA K UMAR S/O BALAKRISHNA T
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC. J EM SUB DIV ISION, K OPPAL 583231.
..PETITIONERS
(By S ri. SANT OSH B MANE, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE IN SPECT OR,
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU KOPPAL,
REPRES ENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARW AD.
RESPOND ENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, SPL PP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO DIRECT THE RESPOND ENT POLICE/AUTHORITIES
TO RELEAS E THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 21 AND 23 ON BAIL
IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST I N CONNECTION W ITH THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 13( 1)(c), (d) (I) (II)
(III) (2) AND SECTION 15 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
ACT 1988, SECTION 406, 408, 409, 417, 420, 464, 471, 474,
477, 477(A), 120( B) OF I PC 1860 REGISTERED BY KOPPAL ACB
IN THEIR CRIME N O.3/2016.
3
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
ORDERS T HIS DAY , THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.102111/2022 is filed by accused No.1 and Criminal Petition No.102086/2022 is filed by accused Nos.21 and 23. Both the petitioners are filed under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Koppal ACB Crime No.3/2016 registered by registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c)(d)(i)(ii) and (iii)(2) and Section 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 406, 408, 409, 417, 420, 464, 471, 476, 477, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, in the Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, Koppal, from 21.09.2013 to 06.02.2014, there was a scheme of Rural Water Supply and an amount of Rs.23,41,86,474/- was allotted for the said work. That there was allegations of 4 misappropriation and a complaint was lodged. FIR was registered against 30 officers and contractors for breach of trust, forgery of public records, fabrication of documents, falsification of documents, accounts and criminal conspiracy. The Hon'ble Deputy Lokayukta had enquired and found that there was misappropriation and based on that report, a case was registered. The accused against whom a case was registered, had preferred writ petition for quashing of the proceedings and the same came to be dismissed by order dated 26.02.2021. Thereafter, the ACB proceeded for investigation and these petitioners apprehending their arrest have approached the Sessions/Special Judge, Koppal seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Santosh Malagoudar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ACB. 5
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that, the scheme is of the year 2013-14 and the petitioners and other accused have not committed any offence as alleged and it is clear from the report of the Ombudsman of Panchayat Raj, Koppal, submitted in the year 2015, report by CEO Zilla Panchyat, the report by Dy.S.P. Lokayukta, report by State Quality Control Monitor submitted in the year 2015. It is his further submission that, earlier, the petitioners and other accused have submitted all relevant records to the concerned authorities for holding inquiry and even, if, any other documents are available, they are ready to submit the same to the Investigating Officer. It is his further submission that the offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life except the offence under Section 409 of IPC. It is his further submission that accused No.1 is a retired Assistant Executive Engineer and accused Nos.21 and 23 are the Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer still serving in the Department and their presence can be 6 secured easily for investigation and trial. With this, he prayed to allow the petitions.
5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has contended that one of the offences alleged against the petitioners is under Section 409 of IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for life. The offences alleged against the petitioners is misappropriation of funds of the scheme. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. The petitioners are required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed to reject the petitions.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Public prosecutor, this Court has gone through the FIR, complaint and other documents.
7. An amount of Rs.23,41,86,474/- has been allotted for scheme of Rural Water Supply in Panchayat 7 Raj Engineering Division, Koppal from 21.09.2013 to 06.02.2014. It was alleged in the year 2014 by a contractor that, there are irregularities by the authorities and he named involvement of 30 engineers. Thereafter, an inquiry was held by Ombudsman of Zilla Panchayat, Koppal, who submitted a report that, there are no irregularities. On the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the CEO Zilla Panchayat, Koppal, has also conducted inquiry and he also submitted a report stating that there are no irregularities. In the meantime, the matter was referred to the Dy.SP Lokayukta in the year 2015, who with the assistance of an expert agency by name M/s Sapience Consultant and Engineers, Bengaluru, has submitted a report stating that there are no irregularities. The said report was sent to the Government. The matter was again referred to the State Quality Control Monitor which has submitted a report stating no irregularities. In the meantime, the Superintendent Engineer, Belgaum has sent a letter to the Government to conduct extensive inquiry with regard to 8 the entire scheme and the matter was referred to Upalokayukta, who verified the document and found 50 irregularities in maintaining the records pertaining to the scheme. The said report was accepted by the Government and directed the ACB to register a case by order dated 03.10.2016. On that basis, FIR came to be registered against 50 engineers and contractors (not named) and investigation is in progress. In the FIR there is reference of 46 volumes, 13 measurement books, cash books and other documents. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation and to produce whatever the documents available with them. Accused No.1 is a retired Assistant Executive Engineer and accused Nos.21 and 23 are the Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer serving in the Department and therefore, their presence can be easily secured for investigation and trial. The offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life except the offence under Section 409 of IPC. The apprehension of the prosecution that if 9 the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses, can be met with by imposing stringent conditions.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Both the petitions filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are allowed. Consequently, the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 21 and 23 shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.3/2016 of ACB Police Station, Koppal subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 21 and 23 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.10
ii. The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 21 and 23 shall remain present before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday between 10:00am to 6:00 pm for a period of six months or till filing of final report whichever is earlier.
iii. The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 21 and 23 shall co-
operate in the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required.
iv. The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 21 and 23 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
v. The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 21 and 23 shall not obstruct or hamper the investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected.
vi. The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 21 and 23 are directed to furnish the documents available with them to the Investigating Officer.
Sd/-
JUDGE km v