Karnataka High Court
Shri.Ibrahim Khondasaheb Khondanaik vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101013 OF 2019
BETWEEN
1. SHRI. IBRAHIM
KHONDASAHEB KHONDANAIK
AGE.57 YEARS,
OCC. REVENUE INPSECTOR,
2. SRI. DILAWAR KHADISAB NADAF
AGE.40 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
3. SRI. DADAPEER
ALLABAKSHA TAHASILDAR
AGE.31 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
ALL ARE R/O: BAILHONGAL, BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ACB POLICE, BELAGAVI
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD,
REP. BY ITS
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1,
2 & 3 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.06/2019
REGISTERED BY THE ACB FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
7(a),7(A) 13(b) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988,
ON THE FILE OF IV-ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS & SPECIAL
JUDGE (PCA) BELAGAVI.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to release them on bail in Crime No.6/2019 registered by the ACB police for the offences punishable under sections 7(a),7(A) 13(b) OF Prevention of Corruption ACT, 1988.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 and the learned SPP for respondent/ACB.
3. The gist of the complaint is that a unanimous application has been received by Lokayukta :3: alleging that in the office of Tahasildar, Bailhongal there is a rampant corruption. Immediately, Lokayukta directed the Superintendent of Police to conduct an inquiry and submit his report. In pursuance of the said order, he conducted an inquiry and submitted his report on 28.08.2018. Subsequently, on 21.05.2019, after obtaining search warrant, the investigating agency, along with pancha witnesses, went to the office of the Tahasildar, Bailhongal and when they were observing in the office of revenue inspector, at 4.30 p.m., they found three persons, working in the said office, indulged in corruption. They went inside the office and conducted a search. At that time, they found cash of Rs.1,32,000/- with accused No.1 and cash of Rs.10,000/- in almirah. They also found cash of Rs.10,550/- in a dustbin, which was kept near accused No.2 and in the table drawer of accused No.2 they also found cash of Rs.5,500/-. Further, they also found cash of Rs.24,140/- with the 1st accused, cash of Rs.2,110/- :4: with accused No.2 and cash of Rs.1,730/- with accused No.3. In all the investigating officer seized Rs.1,86,030/- from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 3 and a case has been registered in this behalf.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 that accused No.1 is working as a revenue inspector and there is no question of he being absconding and the amount, which was found with him is government money, which was collected from farmers to deposit the same before the Government. He further submitted that accused No.2 has also given explanation regarding from where he has collected the said money. He further submits that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The trial may take some time and there is no necessary of custodial interrogation of the accused persons. They are ready to abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court and also ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court. On these :5: grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and enlarge the petitioners-accused persons on bail.
5. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by the learned SPP that on the basis of unanimous information, a raid has been conducted in the office of revenue inspector and an amount of Rs.1,86,030/- was found in the possession of accused Nos.1 to 3. Though accused No.1 is not having any authority to appoint accused Nos.2 and 3 he appointed them to collect the money. It is further submitted that the accused No.1 is a revenue inspector and if he is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence and he may create documents to rectify the case. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and if they are released on bail, they may not be available for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation and they may abscond and may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. :6:
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties and perused the records.
7. A close reading of the complaint averments and other materials show that it is the allegation made in the complaint that on information and as per the instructions of Lokayukta, the Superintendent of Police and his team conducted a raid in the office of revenue inspector and there they found the accused persons possessing total amount of Rs.1,86,030/-.
8. It is a specific case of the petitioners that the said amount was collected from the auction and which is belonging to farmers and on the same day it was intended to be deposited to the government. It is a matter which is to be considered at the time of trial. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Though it is submitted by the learned SPP that the accused No.1 is the revenue :7: inspector and if he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and create documents, but as per KCSR, if the accused is a government servant and if he is kept in custody for more than 48 hours, then under such circumstances, it is to be presumed that he is under suspension. Under such circumstances, he cannot join the office and tampering of documents does not arise at all, until his suspension is revoked by the competent authority. Hence, I feel that if some stringent conditions are imposed and the accused persons are released on bail, it would meet the ends of justice.
9. In the light of the above discussions, the petition is allowed and petitioners-accused No.1 to 3 are ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.6/2019 registered by the ACB police for the offences punishable under sections 7(a),7(A) 13(b) OF P.C. ACT, 1988, subject to following conditions:
:8:
i. Each of the petitioner-accused shall execute personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court. ii. They shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. iii. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission. iv. They shall mark their attendance once in 15 days before the investigating officer till conclusion of trial. v. They shall regularly appear before the Trial Court when the trial starts.
Sd/-
JUDGE yan