Karnataka High Court
Shri T N Chikkarayappa vs The State Of Karnataka By on 24 March, 2017
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
Criminal Petition No.730/2017
C/W
Writ Petition No.63563/2016
In Criminal Petition No.730/2017 :
BETWEEN :
SHRI.T.N.CHIKKARAYAPPA
S/O.S.NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.546, 1ST MAIN ROAD
3RD BLOCK, DOLLAR'S COLONY
RMV 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 094
OCCUPATION : MD, CNNL, BANGALORE
REPRESENTED DULY AUTHORIZED PERSON
SHRI. RAMA REDDY ... PETITIONER
(By Shri. B.V. ACHARYA, Sr. COUNSEL &
Shri. D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL FOR
Shri.M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, Adv.,)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
ACB POLICE, BANGALORE CITY
BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT
(By Shri. B.N.JAGADEESHA, Spl.PP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.26/2016 OF ACB P.S., BANGALORE FOR
-2-
THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.13(1)(e),13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF PC
ACT. THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., SPL. JUDGE,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE HAS
DISMISSED THE BAIL PETITION ON 13.01.2017 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.9201/2016.
In Writ Petition No.63563/2016 :
BETWEEN :
SHRI.T.N.CHIKKARAYAPPA
S/O. S. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.546, 1ST MAIN ROAD
3RD BLOCK, DOLLAR'S COLONY
RMV 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 094
OCCUPATION: MD, CNNL
BANGALORE ... PETITIONER
(By Shri. B.V. ACHARYA, Sr. COUNSEL &
Shri. D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL FOR
Shri.M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, Adv.,)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
ACB POLICE STATION, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE CITY
BANGALORE - 01
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 01 ... RESPONDENTS
(By Shri.B.N.JAGADEESHA, Spl.PP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION
482 Cr.P.C, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE REGISTRATION
OF CASE AGAINST HIM BY THE RESPONDENT ACB IN CRIME
NO.26/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ALL PROCEEDINGS
PERTAINING THERETO ARE ILLEGAL AND VITIATED.
-3-
THESE CRIMINAL PETITION AND WRIT PETITION
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON
01.03.2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C, is filed seeking enlargement of petitioner on anticipatory bail in Crime No.26/2016 registered by the respondent/ACB Police, Bengaluru City for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e), 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act' for short).
2. Heard Shri B.V. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Spl. PP for the respondent/ACB.
3. Shri B.V. Acharya, made following submissions:-
(i) The complaint is based on a Source Report dated 5.12.2016, which was made over by the Inspector of Police to the Superintendent of Police, ACB and accordingly the instant FIR has been registered;-4-
(ii) The Source Report is palpably false and based on surmises;
(iii) The Source Report shows that the petitioner had an income of Rs.1,30,00,000/- and spent Rs.1,25,00,000/-. Out of which Rs.25,00,000/- is estimated as domestic expenses and Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards cost of medical education of petitioner's children;
(iv) Source Report also records that the petitioner's wife owns a house bearing No.546 in Dollar's Colony estimated at Rs.2,00,00,000/-, a Flat in Pebble Bay Apartments in a 'Benami name' estimated at Rs.2,00,00,000/-, a site in the name of petitioner estimated at Rs.10,00,000/-, movables such as Car, jewellary estimated at Rs.50,00,000/-. It also shows that Cash of Rs.75,00,000/- was found by the Income Tax Authorities during the raid conducted on 30.11.2016;
(v) That no documentary evidence in respect of the aforementioned properties is brought on record to -5- substantiate the claim made in the source report. Particularly, the Flat in Pebble Bay Apartments alleged to be in the name of a Benami is estimated at Rs.2,00,00,000/-. It is not discernable from the material on record as to who is the title holder of the said flat as no details are forthcoming with regard to the ownership of the flat;
(vi) The source report alleges that a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- was seized during the Income Tax raid held on 30.11.2016. But, the Cash found as per the inventory prepared by the Income Tax Department and certified by an Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), was Rs.3,80,450/-. The same has also been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph No.16 of his Order dated 13.1.2017 in Crl.Misc.No.9201/2016 dismissing the said petition;
(vii) An offence under Section 13 of PC Act is not punishable with death or life imprisonment;
(viii) Petitioner has co-operated with the prosecution throughout;
-6-
(ix) Petitioner is an officer under the State Government and working for the last 30 years. He has strong roots in the Society and hence, there can be no chance of his absconding; and
(x) Section 41 of Cr.P.C, provides that an accused may be arrested only under such contingencies prescribed therein.
With above submissions, learned Senior Counsel argued that the respondent has filed an FIR based on absolutely incorrect Source Report. He submitted that the petitioner undertakes to abide by all conditions which this Court may impose and prayed that this petition may be allowed.
4. Opposing the petition, Shri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Spl. PP for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is alleged of the offences based on the Source Report. Source Report is prepared based on the Intelligence Information. Therefore, there could be some variations. However, the fact remains that there was an Income Tax raid in the premises of the petitioner. -7- Petitioner has not responded well during the course of investigation. Particularly, he has not produced his passport to verify his travel details. It is necessary to conduct custodial interrogation to collect relevant material. He has produced a sealed cover containing a communication from Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, wherein, the travel details of petitioner and his family members is recorded. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissing of this criminal petition.
5. In reply, Shri B.V.Acharya submitted that the passport of the petitioner is misplaced. However, he shall endeavour to search and surrender as soon as the same is traced.
6. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Spl. PP; and perused material papers.
-8-
7. The instant FIR against the petitioner is based on the source report. In the said report, petitioner is alleged to be in possession of properties estimated at Rs.5,35,00,000/-. The income of petitioner is estimated at Rs.1,30,00,000/- and expenditure at Rs.1,25,00,000/-. Thus, in all, the Source Report shows that the petitioner's assets disproportionate to the known source of income is estimated at Rs.5,35,00,000/-. One of the properties estimated at Rs.2,00,00,000/- is described as a Flat in Pebble Bay Apartments in 'Benami name'. It is also stated that the cash found at the time of Income Tax raid was Rs.75,00,000/-. But, copy of the inventory by the Income Tax Department filed with this petition shows that the cash of Rs.3,80,450/- was found. This fact is not controverted by the learned Spl.PP. Thus, these two components in the source report prima facie appear to be incorrect.
8. It is also not disputed by the learned Spl.PP that the petitioner was in State Government service for the last over 30 years. It is stated by the learned Senior -9- Counsel that the petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency and comply with all the conditions, which this Court may impose.
9. No material is placed even before this Court to substantiate the claim of prosecution with regard to the Flat in Pebble Bay Apartments, which is estimated at Rs.2,00,00,000/-. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the petitioner has joined the investigation and co-operated with the Investigating Agency, is also not disputed by the learned Spl.PP.
10. In the circumstances, in my view, this petition deserves to be allowed with stringent conditions:
(i) In the event of arrest or voluntary surrender of petitioner in Crime No.26/2016 registered in State ACB Police, Bengaluru City before the jurisdictional Police or Magistrate on or before 10.4.2017, he shall be released on bail upon his executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) with two sureties for the like sum to the
- 10 -
satisfaction of the investigating officer or the jurisdictional Magistrate as the case may be;
(ii) Petitioner shall surrender his passport to the jurisdictional Magistrate. If the petitioner fails to surrender the passport within one week from the date of this order, the respondent - Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to inform the Passport Issuing Authority to refrain from issuing a Fresh Passport and to take such further action in accordance with law to restrict petitioner's movement beyond the territory of the country;
(iii) Petitioner shall not leave the country without express leave of the jurisdictional Magistrate, even if he obtains a fresh passport;
(iv) Petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during further course of investigation and appear as and when called upon;
(v) Petitioner shall mark his attendance
before the Investigating Officer
/Respondent-police on every 1st and 3rd
- 11 -
Saturday of each calendar month between 10 a.m. & 5 p.m till the charge sheet is filed;
(iv) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witness or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or investigating officer;
(v) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities; and
(vi) If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. Criminal Petition is allowed with above conditions. ORDERS ON W.P.NO.63563/2016
11. On 1.3.2017, learned Senior Counsel Shri B.V. Acharya and Shri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, had submitted that if bail is granted in Crl.P.No.730/2017, the petitioner was desirous of withdrawing this writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition at a later point of time and accordingly sought leave of this Court.
- 12 -
12. Therefore, in view of this Court having granted anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.730/2017, prayer to withdraw the writ petition is granted. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with leave as prayed for.
13. In view of disposal of main matters, applications viz., IA.1/2017 for Interim Bail in Crl.P.No.730/2017; IA.2/2017 for adding additional grounds & IA.3/2017 for vacating stay in W.P.No.63563/2016 do not survive for consideration and the same are also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cp/Yn.*