Karnataka High Court
Sri. Raghuveer. H. U vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5136/2022
C/w.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5198/2022
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5396/2022
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5648/2022
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5865/2022
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5136/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI C.N. SHASHIDHAR
S/O. C. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.152, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
CHENNARAYAPATNA
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116.
2. SRI SHARATH KUMAR R.
S/O. B. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA
MYLARAPATNA ROAD
BEHIND KEB, NAGAMANGALA
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI C.R. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CID (HIGH GROUND POLICE)
BENGALURU
2
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU- 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.S. HEGDE, SPP-II A/W.
SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.60/2022 OF HIGH GROUNDS P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B R/W. 34 OF IPC
ON THE FILE OF THE I A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5198/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAGHUVEER. H. U.
S/O. UMESH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT DONAKUPPE VILLAGE
AGALAKOTE HAND POST, KASABA HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION
(NOW CID POLICE, BENGALURU)
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE
BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.S. HEGDE, SPP-II A/W.
SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.60/2022 OF HIGH GROUNDS P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B, 409 R/W. 34 OF
IPC ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5396/2022
BETWEEN:
NAVEEN PRASAD
S/O. K.V. VENKATAGIRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OCC: SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560 091 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI CHETHAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.S. HEGDE, SPP-II A/W.
SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.60/2022 OF HIGH
GROUNDS P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S.128B, 120, 465, 468, 471 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
IPC.
4
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5648/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI DILEEP KUMAR C.K.
S/O. C.D. KEMPPANNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT NO.179C
4TH CROSS, FOREST LAYOUT
R.V. COLLEGE POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH
BENGALURU-560 059.
2. SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR H.R.
S/O. K. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO.275
HODIKE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
HONGANOOR, CHANNPATTANA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION
(NOW CID POLICE BENGALURU)
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.S. HEGDE, SPP-II A/W.
SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
5
CR.NO.60/2022 OF HIGH GROUNDS P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B R/W. 34 OF IPC
ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST A.C.M.M, AT BENGALURU.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5865/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. SURINARAYANA K.
S/O. LATE KAMBE GOWDA
AGE: 30 YEARS
OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O. GIDDENAHALLI
DASANAPURA HOBLI
KADABAGERE POST
BENGALURU-562 130. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LT. CDR. AVINASH SABARAD (RETD.), ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY PP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.S. HEGDE, SPP-II A/W.
SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.60/2022 OF HIGH GROUNDS P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B R/W. 34 OF IPC, ON
THE FILE OF THE I ACMM, BENGALURU.
6
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.07.2022 AND THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Crl.P.No.5136/2022 is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Cr.No.60/2022 of High Grounds police station, Bengaluru city for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The Crl.P.No.5198/2022 is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.60/2022 of High Grounds police station, Bengaluru city for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B, 409 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The Crl.P.No.5396/2022 is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.60/2022 of High Grounds police station, Bengaluru city for the offences punishable under Sections 128B, 120, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
7
4. The Crl.P.No.5648/2022 is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Cr.No.60/2022 of High Grounds police station, Bengaluru city for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. The Crl.P.No.5865/2022 is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.60/2022 of High Grounds police station, Bengaluru city for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
7. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that in the complaint dated 30.04.2022, an allegation is made that the Government has issued a Notification No.98/Recruitment/2/2020-21 for the post of 545 PSI (Civil) 8 posts and in conducting the examination process, accused persons have indulged in malpractice as a result, the persons who have indulged in such acts, their names are also found in the selection list and the same is done in tampering OMR sheets which are not tallied with carbon copy which is in the possession of the candidates and also found some of 22 persons OMR papers are tampered and prima facie found indulged in such acts and candidates who have appeared before the enquiry have not given proper answer and their names are also listed in the complaint. It is also an allegation that the candidates and other accused persons have also indulged in such acts. Hence, the aforesaid cases have been registered in Cr.No.60/2022 for the aforesaid offences against the respective petitioners.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5198/2022 submits that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4 and he has not indulged in such act and he is having good reputation in the locality and there is no criminal antecedents against this petitioner and he is studying in Sheshadripuram Law College at Bengaluru in 4th Semester (3 9 years LL.B) course and in view of the registration of the case, apprehended him and he is unable to attend the classes as well as practical regularly. In fact he has taken coaching in the "Jannagangothri" coaching centre and produced ID cards in respect of coaching centre as well as college. The police have purposefully, intentionally and deliberately implicated him in the case and he is an innocent person and he has not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint and he is in custody from the date of the arrest and in view of the judicial custody, his personal liberty is affected and a frivolous complaint is filed against the petitioner. The counsel further submits that the complaint is a cooked up complaint and not in accordance with Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. and penal provisions which have been invoked not attracts against him and he has not used any forged documents and not committed illegal act and the counsel further submits that he is 22 years old and his father is also suffering from medical ailment and prayed to enlarge him on bail.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment reported in 10 2003 CRL. L. J. 736 in the case of JEET RAMA AND ETC. vs STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH wherein it is held that mere gravity of offence and the severity of punishment is no ground for rejection of bail and no material on record to show that in the event of bail, the accused are likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence. The counsel also replied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 in the case of SANJAY CHANDRA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and in this judgment, the Apex Court held that the gravity of alleged offence and severity of punishment prescribed in law ought to be taken into consideration simultaneously and gravity alone cannot be decisive ground to deny bail. The counsel relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1978 SC 429 in the case of GUDIKANTI NARASIMULU vs PUBLIC PROSECUTOR wherein the Apex Court held that bail is a rule, jail is an exception. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 in the case of DATARAM SINGH vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER wherein an observation made with regard to even if grant or refusal of bail is entirely upon discretion of Judge, it 11 must be exercised in a judicious manner and in a humane way as such remanding hampers dignity of accused howsoever poor he might be and ultimately presumption of innocence. The counsel also relied upon the unreported order dated 25.06.2021 in Crl.P.No.101121/2021 and order dated 01.07.2021 in Crl.P.No.101116/2021 and order dated 17.07.2021 in Crl.P.No.101236/2021 passed by this Court taking note of age of the accused and also taken note of the fact that the accused is a student and if he detained in jail, it will affect his educational carrier. The counsel also relied upon the order dated 02.07.2021 in Crl.P.No.101151/2021 and order dated 27.07.2021 in Crl.P.No.101319/2021 passed by this Court wherein observed that investigating agency has already collected the thumb impression of the person who attended the physical test and thumb impression of the petitioner-accused No.1 and when the documents are already been collected and the petitioner has undertaken to cooperate with the police and the investigation and ready to abide by the conditions, he may be enlarged on bail and he cannot be detained in custody.
12
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5396/2022 would vehemently contend that this petitioner is a PSI who is in service working at Byadarahalli police station and he is an innocent person and there is an apprehension of arrest and likelihood of implicating him as an accused and the offence are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and the same is triable by Magistrate and this petitioner is no way concerned and not involved in such acts and the police have issued the notice for appearance and they are visiting the place of his residence and the petitioner had received a message from mobile No.9743954489 which is the mobile number of one Manjunath, Police Sub-Inspector attached with CID police asking him to surrender to the police hence, there is an apprehension of arrest and this petitioner has not indulged in such acts hence, he may be enlarged on bail. The only reason for arrest of this petitioner is that accused No.4 has given a confession statement before the investigating agency stating that this petitioner had helped him in the process of selection and this petitioner had collected an amount of Rs.30 lakhs out of Rs.40 lakhs.
13
11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5648/2022 submits that these petitioners have been arraigned as accused Nos.16 and 19 and both are in judicial custody and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Petitioner No.1 is Master Degree graduate in Commerce (M.Co,m) and the petitioner No.2 has completed Bachelor degree in Engineering (B.E). The petitioners with their hard work in study and by self efforts they faced examination and obtained good marks and on merit, they got selected as successful candidates in PSI examination. On reading the complaint itself discloses that there is no offences committed by these petitioners and major investigation is already completed and further custodial trial is not required and the respondent police have registered the false case against these petitioners and the petitioners are entitled for bail and the counsel also vehemently contend that the only allegation against these petitioners is that their OMR sheets are not tallying with their carbon copies thus, the case has been registered and took them in custody and hence, the petitioners are entitled for bail. 14
12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5865/2022 would contend that this petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.20 and the very contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he has achieved 22nd position in the PSI examination out of his sheer hard work and dedicated efforts and the prosecution has miserably failed to establish prima facie case against the petitioner and the offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment of life. The petitioner himself handed over the documents such as carbon copy of OMR and hall ticket to the Investigating Officer and he is in custody from 30.04.2022 and no need of further custodial investigation hence, he may be enlarged on bail. The counsel also vehemently contend that this petitioner is only breadwinner for the family and he lost his father in the year 2021 and he is ready to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the further investigation and Section 409 of IPC is not applicable since no money is recovered from him. The counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2017) 3 SCC 751 in the case of STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER vs AMIT KUMAR ALIAS BACHCHA 15 RAI wherein the Apex Court held that bail is a rule and jail is an exception and no need of custody for long time and brought to notice of the factual aspects of the reported judgment which is referred in paragraph 3 and also brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 9 and 10 wherein an observation is made that it is not appropriate to compare the case of the other accused who are on bail and offences are punishable with death or life imprisonment hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5136/2022 vehemently contend that these petitioners are the strangers to the applicants and the question of conspiracy with the other accused persons does not arise and there is no recovery from the petitioners and there is no evidence to show that these petitioners are involved in the alleged acts and they have been falsely implicated in the case and these petitioners are in custody only based on the voluntary statement of other accused persons and the question of tampering does not arise and nothing is seized from these petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is the resident of Channarayapatna 16 and member of Town Municipality and petitioner No.2 is the business man and having son aged about 4 years who is suffering from sensory disabilities/mental disabilities since birth and he has to undergo physiotherapy at Bengaluru and his mother want to bring him to Bengaluru for treatment from Nagamangala, Mandya hence, they may be enlarged on bail and no need of further custodial trial.
14. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would vehemently opposes the bail petitions filed by the respective petitioners contending that unscrupulous persons have indulged in tampering of OMR sheets and there was a conspiracy and still matter is under investigation and at the crime stage, the petitioners are not entitled for the bail. In respect of Crl.P.No.5136/2022, the learned SPP submits that the petitioners are accused Nos.24 and 27 and arrested on 29.04.2022 and 09.05.2022 respectively and the counsel would submit that on 15.05.2022, an amount was seized from accused No.23 and the same is a joint recovery along with accused No.24 from the garden land of accused No.23 and Rs.30 lakhs was 17 seized and these petitioners are in touch with accused No.29 and an amount is pertains to accused No.6 who is also been selected in the selection list and accused No.23 is the relative of accused No.6 and these two petitioners are indulged in such acts. The learned SPP further submits that CDR report clearly discloses that accused No.27 spoken to one Chandrashekar and there were 270 out going calls and 88 incoming calls and CDR report also discloses that accused No.24 made 533 outgoing calls and received 603 incoming calls and there are 23 SMS and these CDR reports clearly disclose that accused Nos.6, 23, 24 and 27 were in touch with each other. Accused No.6 also manipulated the paper and panchanama was also drawn for recovery of amount from accused Nos.23 and 24 and the same is a joint recovery.
15. The Learned SPP for the State in respect of Crl.P.No.5198/2022 would submit that accused No.4 is the candidate and his OMR sheet is manipulated and he is also a beneficiary in the alleged crime and he has also a contributor for massive scandal and CDR clearly discloses that he has 18 participated in the said crime and he has marked only 30 questions and the same is stated in his voluntary statement and he was in touch with accused Nos.1, 7, 9, 17 and 18 and he has paid an amount of Rs.85 lakhs to other accused person who is seeking for anticipatory bail i.e., Naveen Prasad, PSI. Hence, there is a sufficient material against this petitioner also.
16. The learned SPP in respect of Crl.P.No.5396/2022 vehemently contend that the voluntary statement of accused No.4 is clear that he has paid an amount of Rs.85 lakhs and this petitioner is seeking for anticipatory bail and he is working in Byadarahalli police station and the counsel for the State submits that one more case is registered against him in Cr.No.118/2022 and he worked as a middlemen and he demanded an amount of Rs.30 lakhs and taken a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC attracts against this petitioner since he is a Government employee and punishment for the said offence is for a period of 10 years and which may extend up to life imprisonment and he being a PSI, indulged in evading investigation hence, his presence is required. 19
17. The learned SPP appearing for the State in respect of Crl.P.No.5648/2022 vehemently contend that these petitioners are accused Nos.16 and 19 and they are also the candidates. Accused No.16 has answered only 19 questions and CCTV footage also discloses that he has not answered entire questions and his paper is also tampered and FSL report also discloses the tampering of OMR sheets and he has been in touch with accused No.34 who is also a PIS and this petitioner given an amount of Rs.30 lakhs and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.10 lakh after the selection to accused No.34. The other accused No.19 is also a candidate and he revealed the name of accused No.32 and this petitioner also answered only 20 questions and he had also indulged in tampering of OMR sheet and FSL report also clearly discloses that the same has been tampered and CCTV footage also recovered and he has paid an amount of Rs.32 lakhs and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.15 lakhs after the selection and voluntary statements of accused Nos.16 and 19 are very clear that they also indulged in such acts. 20
18. The learned SPP appearing for the State in respect of Crl.P.No.5865/2022 vehemently contend that accused No.20 who is also a candidate and his OMR sheet also manipulated and FSL report discloses that the same is tampered and he has answered only 16 questions and remaining questions are tampered and this petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.15 lakhs and he has been in touch with accused Nos.29 and 33 who is the RPI Inspector and CDR discloses that all of them are in touch with each other and prayed to dismiss all the bail petitions.
19. In reply to the arguments of the learned SPP, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contend that they are in custody and in statement of objections in respect of Crl.P.No.5136/2022, they have stated that recovery is made at the instance of accused No.23 and accused No.24 was not present and they are neither the candidates nor the beneficiaries hence, they may be enlarged on bail. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5396/2022 would submit that page Nos.38 and 39 is very clear that Investigating Officer took the signature on the blank paper and the same has been 21 created and no evidence is collected and in respect of Crl.P.No.5685/2022, there is no recovery from accused No.20 and there is no voluntary statement and not attract Section 420 of IPC and voluntary statements are created and CDR cannot be relied upon when no details are given hence, prayed this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
20. Having heard the respective learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State and so also the grounds urged in the bail petition and the material available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.5136/2022, 5198/2022, 5648/2022 and 5865/2022 have made out a ground to invoke Section 439 of Cr.P.C to enlarge them on bail?
(ii) Whether the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5396/2022 has made out a ground to invoke Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to grant the relief of anticipatory bail?
(iii) What order?
22
Point No.(i)
21. Having taken note of the material available on record, these petitioners are in custody from the date of their arrest. In all the four petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners are the candidates in the PSI examination, except the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5136/2022, who are the middlemen according to the prosecution. The petitioners, who are the candidates also participated in the examination and they are also successful in the examination. The main allegation against them is that, they had indulged in malpractice and they were in touch with the persons, who are in helm of affairs in the selection process. The material placed before the Court in respect of the petitioners, who are the candidates in the PSI examination, it is seen that their papers are manipulated. It is the main contention of the prosecution also that, though the candidates answered only minimum number of questions, the RFSL report placed before the Court discloses that the names of these petitioners are also found wherein, their OMR sheets have been manipulated. Now, the 23 matter is under crime stage and the investigation is not yet completed and no doubt, they are in custody from the date of their arrest, when the prima facie material discloses that they are the candidates, whose OMR sheets are manipulated and in the complaint itself, their names are also found that prima facie material is against them. When such being the case and the material discloses that the OMR sheets are tampered and the same is not found in the carbon sheets which they have secured during the course of the investigation, there is a prima facie case against the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for bail during the crime stage, since it is a big scam and these petitioners have indulged in the process of selection of PSI which is nothing but an act of terror to the society and the real victims are those, who have appeared in the examination and suffered injustice at the hands of persons, who have indulged in manipulation of OMR sheets and also tampering the same which were kept in the Secret Guard Room, wherein the OMR sheets were kept in the custody of persons, who are in helm of affairs of the selection process. The same is an impact on the society at large and the people will loose faith in the selection process and 24 what services the people can expect from the candidates, who have indulged in the manipulation of question papers in the selection process. It is nothing but the fence eating the gross.
22. The other petitioners are the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5136/2022. No doubt, though they claim that they are strangers and have not indulged in any such act and they have been booked for having worked as middlemen, it has to be noted that accused No.24 was apprehended on 29.04.2022 and accused No.27 was apprehended on 09.05.2022. No doubt, in the objection statement, the State has stated that recovery is made at the instance of accused No.23 for an amount of Rs.30 lakhs, it is the case of the prosecution that an amount of Rs.30 lakhs was collected from accused No.6, who is also a candidate and his name is also found in the selection list.
23. It is also important to note that while seizing the amount, the police have taken the accused No.24 along with accused No.23 and there was a joint recovery, that too, in the garden land of accused No.23. Apart from that, it is the case of the prosecution that these petitioners were in touch with accused 25 Nos.27, 29 and so also accused No.6, who is also a successful candidate in the selection process, who was also in touch with accused No.23 and through these petitioners, the amount has been paid to accused No.23. The prosecution also mainly relies upon the CDR details with regard to incoming and outgoing calls to prove that all of them were in touch with each other. No doubt, only CDR details are found and not placed any details of conversation between them, the same requires time to investigate the same. When such being the material on record and an allegation of intermeddling in the process of selection of candidate for PSI post has been alleged against these petitioners and the material prima facie discloses recovery of an amount of Rs.30 lakhs through accused Nos.23 and 24, however, there is no recovery at the instance of accused No.27 and the call details are collected with regard to the persons, who were in touch in the selection process, particularly, accused Nos.27 and 29, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
26
24. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the accused, who have been produced before the Court particularly, accused Nos.2 to 6, 14 to 16 and 19 to 21 have made the statement before the Magistrate that Investigating Agency has taken their signatures on the blank papers without giving any information. The said contention cannot be accepted at this juncture and whether their signatures are taken on the blank papers or not is a matter of proof and the investigation is not yet completed. The other contention is that the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment and bail is a rule and jail is an exception and the same cannot be accepted for the reason that in a case of murder, the life of a person and his family are affected but, in a case of crime like this, whole society will be affected and it will be an impact on the society and the people will loose faith in the very system which creates anarchy in the society. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in favour of these petitioners during the crime stage. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) as 'negative'.
27Point No.(ii)
25. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5396/2022 is working as Police Sub-Inspector, who is in service had indulged in collecting an amount of Rs.30 lakhs out of the amount of Rs.40 lakhs. The accused No.4, who is the successful candidate, in his confession statement made the statement that he made the payment to this petitioner, who is working as Police Sub-Inspector, Byadarahalli Police Station and the petitioners belong to Magadi Taluk. No doubt, based on the voluntary statement, the petitioner claims that there is an apprehension of arrest and police have also given notice and visiting the house of the petitioner, it has to be noted that the accused No.4, who is also a successful candidate in the PSI examination made a specific statement that he gave the money to this petitioner to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs out of Rs.40 lakhs and inspite of the fact that notice was given to him, though he is in service, he did not appear before the Investigating Officer and he has absconded and to unearth the truth for having collected the amount from the selected candidate i.e., accused No.4, who had revealed the payment of amount, the matter has to be 28 probed. No doubt, only based on the voluntary statement, the Court cannot detain him in custody, here is a case where notice was given to him and inspite of notice, he did not appear and he being the Police Sub-Inspector and working in the very same department failed to appear before the Investigating Officer. In order to recover the amount from the petitioner, since the very successful candidate i.e., accused No.4 disclose that he made the payment to this petitioner to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs and when serious allegation is made, it is nothing but an instance of fence eating the gross and the very society is affected by the persons, who are in helm of affairs, who had indulged in tampering the OMR sheets which are seized and sent to RFSL and the RFSL report is also placed before the Court, wherein, tampering of the OMR sheets of some of the candidates, including the OMR sheet of accused No.4 is proved. When such being the case, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner to enlarge him on bail and the very presence of the petitioner is required to investigate the matter. Accordingly, I answer point No.(ii) also as 'negative'.
29Point No.(iii)
26. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Crl.P.Nos.5136/2022, 5198/2022, 5648/2022 and 5865/2022 filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and so also the Crl.P.No.5396/2022 filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN/ST