Karnataka High Court
Madhu vs State Of Karnataka on 20 November, 2020
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6607/2020
BETWEEN:
1. Madhu
S/o late Lakshman Gowda
Aged about 36 years
H.R. in Power TV News Channel
No.7, 11th Main Road
Mathikere, 1st Stage
Gokula Extension
Bengaluru-560 054.
2. Hemanth Kumar
S/o Siddartha J.,
Aged about 30 years
Reporter in Power TV News Channel
Tumakuru Branch,
Resident of New Extn.,
Tovinakere Village
Chennarayanadurga Hobli
Koratagere Taluk
Tumakuru District-572 138.
...Petitioners
(By Sri George Lazarus R., Advocate)
-2-
AND:
State of Karnataka
by K.P.Agrahara Police Station
Investigation by CCB,
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event
of their arrest in Crime No.135/2020 of Kempapura
Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence
punishable under Sections 384, 465, 419, 506, 120B and
212 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:-
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release them on anticipatory bail in Crime No.135/2020 of Kempapura Agrahara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 465, 419, 506 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.
-3-
2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.George Lazarus R. for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Mahesh Shetty for the respondent-State.
3. The brief facts of the case are that accused No.1 is the Managing Director of Power TV News Channel. Complaint's Company is engaged in construction activities and has obtained tenders from various Departments of the State and Central Governments and BDA. In respect of four different contracts of BDA, an amount of Rs.140 Crores was due to the complainant. It is further alleged that in the month of June, 2020, accused No.1 called the complainant and asked him to meet him in his office at Mathikere. Accordingly, the complainant went and met the accused No.1 and the complainant informed the accused No.1 that he wants to put up an advertisement hoarding at Yelahanka at A.P.Border Troll Road which his Company has developed. While discussing, accused No.1 also informed the complainant that he is very close to Mr.Amith -4- Shah, the Hon'ble Minister of Home Affairs, Government of India and he is in touch with him on regular basis. He also claimed that he could help him in getting any work done either from State or Central Governments. It is further alleged in the complaint that the complainant was in constant touch with accused No.1 and during 4th week of June, 2020 he was persuaded to discuss with him about a tender floated by New Mangalore Port Trust in respect of construction of break water for fishing harbor at Kulai and the value of the work was around Rs.100 Crores and tender got notified on 24.9.2019. After coming to know the said information, accused No.1 called one Mr.Parithosh Bala, Chief Engineer (Civil) New Mangalore Port Trust and spoke to him identifying himself as an Officer working in the office of Mr.Amith Shah, Hon'ble Home Minister and further told him that he has been directed by Hon'ble Home Minister to inform him that the tender submitted by M/s. Ramalingam Construction Company must be approved and granted in its favour. Subsequently, -5- complainant after seeing, was astonished and taken aback after receiving the letter dated 29.6.2020 from New Mangalore Port Trust regarding disqualifying him from the tender process on the ground that he tried to influence the tender awarding authority.
4. It is further alleged that accused No.1 forced the complainant to divulge and give him the details of pending bills from various Departments of Government of Karnataka and he kept on pressurizing him to give every work details assuring him that he would personally get them cleared. He also informed the complainant that he is aware of the pending bills of the complainant's Company to the tune of Rs.140 Crores payable from BDA and he would ensure the said payment be cleared by the BDA and he should be paid 5% on the said amount.
5. It is further alleged that on 26.8.2020 BDA has cleared Rs.7.79 Crores out of pending bill of Rs.140 Crores to the Company of the complainant. Accused No.1 -6- contacted the complainant and insisted him by saying that the said amount has been cleared from BDA and he is entitled to get 5% of the amount as his commission. Complainant refused to pay as he was knowing the fact that the said amount was cleared by the BDA in a routine manner. It is further alleged that accused No.1 was in continuous touch with the complainant on regular basis and induced him to speak in a tutored manner by taking the names of several persons in the Government and further assured that if he speaks the way he wants, he would get all his works cleared from the Government and hearing that the complainant got carried away and tutored the line of tutored conversation without being aware as to for what reason he wanted to take the names and in what manner it would help him. He further alleged that none of the conversation made by him with accused No.1 is true. Later, the complainant started suspicious of the actual intent of accused No.1. It is further alleged that accused No.1 asked 5% of the amount and he also threatened that -7- he will tarnish his reputation by misusing the tutored line and false statement which has been spoken against certain individuals. Because of the threat he paid an amount of Rs.25 lakhs in cash on 22.8.2020. It is further alleged that on 2.9.2020 he was surprised to watch a programme telecasted in the Power TV Channel of accused No.1 wherein he himself was a part of panel discussion and accused No.1 was making several false allegations referring to the work undertaken by his Company. Subsequently, many episodes were also aired/telecasted by accused No.1 through his Channel relating to the work done by the Company of the complainant linked with some politicians and his family members who had no connection with the work executed by the Company of the complainant. The accused No.1 also referred to several conversations held between them. The accused No.1 has used tutored conversations which were extracted from him falsely implicating others to suit his needs to achieve his oblique motive. It is further alleged that accused No.1 used to -8- extract money from others by falsely implicating them in the conversation. It is further alleged that he has edited the conversation in electronic form to suit his stories and thereby committed the offence. On the basis of the said allegations, a case has been registered.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no serious overt acts have been alleged as against petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. It is his further submission that petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are only the employees under accused No.1. They are working in Power T.V. News Channel. It is his further submission that no overt acts have been alleged as against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 except stating that they have helped accused No.1 for escaping from that place. It is his further submission that the provisions of Sections 384, 465, 419 and 506 of IPC are not attracted to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. They are neither participated in the transactions of accused No.1 nor they were aware of the complainant. The alleged offences are not punishable with -9- death or imprisonment for life. It is his further submission that already accused No.1 has been released on anticipatory bail in Criminal Petition No.5445/2020 dated 18.11.2020. On the ground of parity, the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 are also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. They are ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 on anticipatory bail.
7. Though the said application has been seriously contested by the learned High Court Government Pleader, on perusal of the records no serous overt acts have been alleged as against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 for having participated in the said crime along with accused No.1. Already accused No.1 has been released on anticipatory bail by this Court. On the ground of parity, the petitioner-accused Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. The alleged offences are not
- 10 -
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioners- accused are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In that light, this petition is allowed. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.135/2020 of Kempapura Agrahara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 465, 419, 506 and 120(b) of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:
i) Each of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3
shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii) They shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within twenty days from today, failing with this order shall automatically stand cancelled.
- 11 -
iii) They shall co-operate with the Investigation as and when required.
iv) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
i) They shall regularly attend the trial unless exempted by the trial Court for genuine reason.
v) They shall mark their attendance once in fifteen days between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. before the jurisdictional police, till the charge sheet is filed.
vi) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.
vii) He shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities in future.
viii) If they violates any one of the conditions, the bail is liable to be cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE *AP/-