Karnataka High Court
Mr.Paul Francis Miranda vs State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2020
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
CRL.P.3835/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRL.P.No.3835/2020
BETWEEN:
Mr. Paul Francis Miranda,
Aged about 62 years,
S/o late Joseph D Miranda,
Retired Asst. Director of Agriculture,
Buntwal Taluk,
Residing at 2-37A, Parimal,
Opp: Pakshikere Church Hall,
Post: 10-Thokur village - 574 146,
Mangalore Taluk,
D.K.District. ... PETITIONER
(By Chandranath Ariga.K., Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka,
Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Mangalore, D.K. - 575 001,
By Special Public Prosecutor. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri T.S.Satish, Adv. for
Sri Jeevan J.Neeralgi, Spl. Prosecutor)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.PC
praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his
arrest in Cr.No.11/2017 of Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Mangaluru, D.K., for the offence punishable under
CRL.P.3835/2020
2
Sections13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act.
This petition coming on for Orders, through video
conferencing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. This is a petition filed by the accused in Crime No.11/2017 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mangaluru (for short, 'ACB'), for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'PC Act').
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is praying for enlargement of the accused on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the Investigating Officer in the aforesaid crime, amongst the grounds urged therein.
3. It is transpired in the complaint that the crime came to be registered by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of ACB on 12.12.2017 in Cr.No.11/2017 for the offences stated supra. Subsequent to the registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer, had seized the articles in the CRL.P.3835/2020 3 possession of the accused such as Bank deposit receipts, cash and kind under the mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 451 Cr.PC before the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, seeking release of the seized articles. The Sessions Court vide order dated 27.11.2019 ordered release of articles except cash subject to petitioner herein executing indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.85,00,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner has executed the indemnity bond and got released the articles. The petitioner had also filed Criminal Revision Petition No.217/2020 before this Court under Section 397 read with Section 482 Cr.PC for release of cash of Rs.8,41,950/- and foreign currency of the value of about Rs.1,00,000/-. The said petition is pending consideration.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was interrogated by the Investigating Officer long ago and he had submitted his explanation in writing with regard to acquisition of every item of the articles seized more than two and half years ago. However, the CRL.P.3835/2020 4 Investigating Officer is yet to file the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences, though the crime came to be registered in the year 2017. He further submits that the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer several times since the registration of the case in December 2017 onwards for questioning and interrogation. He further submits that the petitioner has always been ready and willing to appear before the Investigating Officer and to co-operate with the investigation. However, the case is still under investigation and even for three years, no charge sheet is filed by the Investigating Officer against the accused. That now the then Investigating Officer has been transferred and a new Officer has taken over the charge of investigation, and therefore, the petitioner apprehends possible arrest by the new Investigating Officer. He further submits that the petitioner is a permanent abode of Thoku village in Mangaluru Taluk and has got deep roots in the society, and that his family consists of wife and a son who is studying in final year B.E. (Computer Science) at Nitte. That apart, the accused has been carrying on extensive CRL.P.3835/2020 5 agricultural activities for the last about 17 years and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail to him.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel Sri T.S.Satish appearing on behalf of the learned Special Prosecutor Sri Jeevan J.Neeralgi seeks time to file objections to the petition filed by the accused. He further submits that he intends to get instructions from the investigating Agency. This submission of the learned Counsel Sri T.S.Satish stands rejected on the ground that this petition is coming up before the Court for the second time and that the Investigating Agency who is investigating the case for the past three years, is not even ready to instruct its counsel for effective adjudication of this petition.
6. At this juncture, learned Counsel Sri T.S.Satish submits that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, certainly he would come in the way of the prosecution and destroy the case of the prosecution.
CRL.P.3835/20206
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of learned SPP and also perused the entire materials available on record.
8. The accused is a Government servant and he has attained the age of superannuation. He has retired as Assistant Director of Agriculture of Bantwal Taluk. Crime No.11/2017 came to be registered against him by the ACB for the offences punishable under the P.C.Act. Even after a lapse of more than 2½ years after the registration of the crime, neither the then Investigating Officer nor the present Investigating Officer has taken any endeavour to file the charge sheet against the accused. It is apprehended by the petitioner that the present Investigating Officer is making efforts to arrest the petitioner under the guise of custodial interrogation. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner has been interrogated long ago and he had submitted his explanation in writing with regard to acquisition of every CRL.P.3835/2020 7 item of the articles seized. In fact, the petitioner had made an application under Section 451 Cr.PC before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court vide order dated 27.11.2019 had ordered for release of the articles except cash subject to petitioner executing indemnity bond. That being the case, it is unfortunate that the investigating agency is yet to file the charge sheet. There is no explanation offered by the ACB for not filing the charge sheet. Under the circumstances, it does not require any much detailed discussion to consider the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. There is substance in the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner for bail. In that view of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a fit case wherein the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail.
9. However, the apprehension of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Special Prosecutor that if the accused is released on anticipatory bail, certainly he would try to destroy the case of the prosecution by tampering with the evidence, can be addressed by CRL.P.3835/2020 8 imposing stringent conditions on the accused to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Accordingly, for the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.PC is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall appear/surrender before the Investigating Officer of ACB in Crime No.11/2017, within a period of 20 days from the date of this order, by executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;
(ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation if necessary;
(iii) The petitioner shall not temper or hamper the prosecution witnesses;
CRL.P.3835/2020 9 (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Mangaluru District without the prior
permission from the competent court of law in respect of the case in Crime No.11/2017;
(v) The petitioner shall not indulge in any other criminal activities henceforth;
10. If the petitioner violates any of the aforesaid conditions, the bail order shall automatically stand ceased.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK