Karnataka High Court
Sri. Prashanth Kumar M V vs State By Karnataka Lokyukta Police on 21 April, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3271 OF 2023
BETWEEN
SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR M V
S/O K. MADAL VIRUPAKSHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO. 301, KMV MANSION
A.E.C.S.LAYOUT, SANJAYANAGAR
BANGLAORE - 560 094 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHANKAR P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKYUKTHA POLICE
BENGALURU CITY POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
(REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
FOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.B. PATIL, SPECIAL COUNSEL)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.13/2023 OF
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, BENGALURU CITY DIVISION,
BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 7(a)(b), 7(A), 8, 9, 10 OF P.C ACT ON THE FILE OF
THE HONBLE 23rd ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.04.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.13/2023 registered by Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) & (b), 7(A), 8, 9 and 10 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C. Act'), pending on the file of 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.B.Patil, learned Special counsel for the respondent-Lokayuktha.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto- complainant one Shreyas Kashyap filed a complaint to the Lokayuktha Police on 02.03.2023 alleging that the accused No.1 is said to be the Chairman of the Karnataka State Soaps and Detergent Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'KSDL') and MLA and demanded Rs.81.00 lakhs for the 3 purpose of placing the order, smooth payment and accepting the tender for procuring the raw material to the KSDL. When the complainant met accused No.1 who is the sitting MLA and chairman of KSDL, said to be demanded Rs.81.00 lakhs and asked to contact this petitioner- accused No.2 and accordingly, the complainant met this petitioner and this petitioner also demanded bribe on 28.02.2023 and the complainant is not interested in paying the bribe and hence, filed complaint to the Police. A trap was set up and an amount of Rs.40.00 lakhs was sent through the complainant on 02.03.2023 when it was handing over to accused No.2, the Lokayuktha Police trapped him and seized Rs.40.00 lakhs. The Lokayuktha Police also seized another Rs.90.00 lakhs from two other persons and thereafter, they said to be raided the house of accused No.1 and seized Rs.6.10 crores from the bed room of accused No.1 and the petitioner was arrested, he was produced before the Special Court and remanded to the judicial custody. Subsequently, the Police said to be took the petitioner for 10 days custody, thereafter, he was 4 remanded back to the judicial custody. His bail petition came to be rejected by the Trial Court on 10.04.2023 in Crl.Misc.Nos.2176/2023 and 2524/2023. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is related to accused No.1 as this petitioner is the son of accused No.1. He is not related to the work pending with the accused No.1. The petitioner is working in BWSSB and he has not demanded and accepted any bribe from the complainant. The complainant came to the office and kept the bag on the table which was taken by accused No.3 and this petitioner is not aware about the said amount kept by the complainant. He would further contended that the investigation is almost completed except filing the final report and for want of FSL report, they have kept the same pending. He is in custody for almost 48 days. The Police are required to file charge- sheet within 10 days. The alleged offence under Section 7(a) does not attract against this petitioner as no work is 5 pending with him and he has not received any bribe for himself and utmost, the offence under Section 8 may attract which is punishable for maximum 7 years and there is minimum punishment prescribed.
5. The learned counsel also contended that the amount seized from the house for Rs.6.10 crores belong to the company run by his brothers which were accounted by the company by producing the Income Tax returns and a relative also examined who has given a statement that the money belongs to them.
6. The learned counsel also contended the main accused is the accused No.1 and all other accused were granted bail by the Sessions Judge except this petitioner. He is a KAS Officer working in BWSSB. He is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for granting bail.
7. Per contra, learned respondent counsel objected the petition by filing written objections 6 contending that there is prima facie case made against the petitioner for accepting the bribe on behalf of his father- accused No.1. The panchanama and pre trap panchanama reveals the demand and acceptance by him. The statement of M.D. of KSDL one Mahesh under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that the interference of this petitioner in the KSDL matter. It is clearly seen about the demand and acceptance. The Investigating Officer examined 23 witnesses. The petitioner has not cooperated with the Investigating Officer. He will tamper and destroy the evidence and he will threat the prosecution witness. The offence is economic offence. Hence, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply has stated that now his father is not an MLA, this petitioner cannot go inside the KSDL Office and question of tampering the witnesses does not arise. Except filing the charge-sheet, nothing is remained and in support of his arguments, the learned counsel has relied upon the 7 various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in 2014 8 SCC 273.
9. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, which reveals, the complainant who is a successful company had obtained the tender from the KSDL for supply of raw materials to the KSDL and for smooth supply of the raw materials and payment, he has approached accused No.1 and for that accused No.1 being MLA and Chairman of KSDL, said to be demanded Rs.80.00 lakhs as bribe and asked the complainant to approach accused No.2-present petitioner. Accordingly, the complainant approached this petitioner through his mobile phone, later, while handing over the amount of Rs.40.00 lakhs, this petitioner was caught red handed and he has been arrested by the Lokayuktha Police. Subsequently, the Police also seized Rs.90.00 lakhs from the other accused persons who also brought some amount to the 8 house of the petitioner and later, the Police raided the house of accused No.1 and seized Rs.6.10 crores from the bed room of accused No.1. Thereafter, all the accused were produced before the Court and remanded to the judicial custody. Accused No.1 has been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court and subsequently, the same was cancelled and later, accused No.1 was arrested and he was remanded to the judicial custody. Admittedly, accused No.1 has been granted regular bail by the same Trial Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on 15.04.2023. The Trial Court also granted bail to the co-accused No.3 on 10.04.2023. The other accused also granted bail by the very same Special Court and now all the accused persons were granted bail by the Special Court except this petitioner.
10. This petitioner is in custody from 02.03.2023 for almost 49 days. As per the statement of objection and submission of respondent counsel, most of the investigation is completed except receiving the FSL report 9 and filing the charge-sheet nothing is pending. The statement of the 23 witnesses have already been recorded including the statement of the MD of KSDL under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court while granting bail to accused No.1 had relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Moti Ram and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47; Bhagirathsinh S/o. Mahipat Singh Judeja vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1984) 1 SCC 284; Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260. All the said judgments are also relied by the petitioner counsel before this Court for granting bail to the present petitioner. In all the above said judgments, including the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State stated supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the provisions of bail and has held that granting bail is rule and rejection is exception and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 directed the Government of India to introduce a separate enactment of 10 bail and also directed the Investigation Agencies or duty bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41A of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the matter in detail and has granted bail to the accused person who are languishing in jail.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though there is a case against the petitioner for accepting the bribe amount on behalf of accused No.1 which may attract Section 8 of the P.C.Act which is punishable for maximum 7 years and not for death or imprisonment for life. He is in custody for almost 50 days. The Courts will be going to close for Summer Vacation. The Investigating Officer may file report within a span of one week or otherwise, if the Investigating Officer failed to file the charge-sheet, the petitioner may get statutory bail. Therefore, keeping the petitioner in custody will not serve any purpose except detaining in jail.
12. The Police already took him for 10 days custody and produced back to the Court and they have not 11 sought any further custody. Therefore, the petitioner may not require for any further investigation for the Police. When all the other accused persons are granted bail by the Trial Court, this petitioner is also entitled for the bail on the ground of parity. Therefore, by imposing certain stringent conditions, if bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution.
13. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to release the petitioner- accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.13/2023 registered by Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) & (b), 7(A), 8, 9 and 10 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner-accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;12
(ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;
(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;
(iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the Court.
(v) Petitioner shall be available for the purpose of any further investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer.
(vi) Petitioner shall surrender the passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB