Karnataka High Court
Mr. Rajappa vs The State By Acb Police on 11 January, 2023
-1-
CRL.P No. 10236 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10236 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MR. RAJAPPA S/O B K CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
WORKING AS SURVEYOUR DDLR OFFICE,
CHITRADURGA 577527,
ALSO R/O DYAMALAMBA, DEVI NILAYA,
KUVEMPU NAGARA, HOSADURGA TOWN,
CHITRADURGA 577527.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAHUL S REDDY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE BY ACB POLICE
CHITRADURGA,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed (AMENDMENT IS CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER
by SUDHA S
DATED 11.01.2023)
Location: High
Court Of
Karnataka THE LOKAYUKTA,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-01.
REP. BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B B PATIL.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
CRL.P No. 10236 of 2022
CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.10/2022 OF ACB POLICE,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7(a) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.10/2022 of ACB Police, pending on the file Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga registered for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri. E.Kubendrappa.
2. Heard Sri. Y.R.Sadashiva Reddy, learned senior advocate for Sri. Rahul S Reddy appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.B.Patil, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the materials placed on record. -3- CRL.P No. 10236 of 2022
3. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as Surveyor in the office of DDLR. He is arrayed as accused alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. There is reasonable apprehension of being arrested by the police. Therefore, he is before this Court. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe for furnishing the certified copy of the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the DDLR. The petitioner was never the case worker and he was not authorized to issue the certified copy of the order. No offence is made out against him. There is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that, the petitioner is not required for interrogation. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice. -4- CRL.P No. 10236 of 2022
5. Per contra, learned SPP opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The petitioner was working as Surveyor demanded Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification for furnishing the certified copy of order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the DDLR. The informant lodged the complaint and pre-trap panchanama was drawn. The amount of Rs.7,000/-was entrusted on 11.08.2022. The petitioner accepted the bribe amount but immediately thereafter coming to know about the presence of Lokayukta police, ran away form the scene of occurrence along with tainted money. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and for recovery of the said money. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that he has no objection to allow the petition.
7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
-5-CRL.P No. 10236 of 2022
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
8. The allegation made against the petitioner is of serious nature. It is stated that the informant is an Advocate by profession. He made specific allegation that he had filed an application with the DDLR to get the certified copy of the order passed on 24.06.2022. It is stated that when the informant applied for certified copy of the order, the petitioner being the Surveyor, demanded Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification on 04.08.2022. Pursuant to the same, he lodged first information and went with the shadow witness with the tainted money. He offered it to the petitioner which he accepted and kept in his pant pocket. Thereafter, he smelt the presence of the police and said to have ran away with the tainted money. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the petitioner being the -6- CRL.P No. 10236 of 2022 Surveyor, ran away from the office during office hours. The allegation is that the petitioner ran way during office hours along with tainted money. The investigation is to be undertaken by the Investigating Officer to find out the truth about the allegations made and for recovery of the tainted money. Therefore, I am of the opinion that at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43