Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 468 (KAR)

B. M. S. Veeraiah v. State

2014-04-11

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2014
ORDER : Budihal R.B., J. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners filed a memo stating that petitioner 1 has been already arrested by the police and hence, he is withdrawing the petition so far as petitioner-accused 1 is concerned. Memo is placed on record. In view of the memo, petition so far as petitioner 1 is concerned is disposed of as withdrawn. 2. This is the petition filed by the petitioners-accused 2 to 7 under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120, 120-B, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 477-A read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga registered in the respondent-police station Crime No. 3 of 2014. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners-accused and also learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State Lokayukta. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that a private complaint has been filed by the complainant by making false allegations against the petitioners. He made the submission that so far as the work is concerned, everything is done in accordance with law. Tenders were accepted by the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafterwards, work order was issued and the petitioners executed the work and no illegality has been committed by the present petitioners in attending the work. Learned Counsel also made the submission that the documents produced by the petitioners goes to show that they have executed the work only after the approval of the concerned authorities. But, he submitted that in executing such work there may be some procedural irregularities might have taken place. He submitted that the petitioners are Government employees and while filing the objections to the bail application before the Special Court, it is mentioned by the prosecution itself that they have seized all the documents. This goes to show that nothing further is to be seized from the present petitioners and they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court and they are ready to appear before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. This goes to show that nothing further is to be seized from the present petitioners and they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court and they are ready to appear before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he submitted that the alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life and by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be granted with anticipatory bail. 5. As against this, the learned Special Public Prosecutor during the course of her arguments submitted that the execution of the work is only on paper but actually the work was not at all executed at the spot. Hence, the question of making the submission that there may be some irregularities in the procedural aspects does not arise at all and also made the submission that the Investigating Officer along with Panch witnesses visited the spot and he drawn the mahazar proceedings by visiting the spot which clearly goes to show that the petitioners have not at all executed single work, but the documents goes to show that as if they have completed the work and they have withdrawn the money. Counsel made the submission that it is the public money provided by the Government for the implementation of a particular work and for every pai of the said amount, petitioners are accountable and answerable. She further made the submission that the matter is still under investigation. Only accused 1 is arrested and it is necessary for the Investigating Officer to have the custodial interrogation of the present petitioners to collect the information. Hence, submitted that petitioners are not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail. The Special Public Prosecutor in support of the contention also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Cri. A. No. 2113 of 2013 and Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 6020 of 2012 the judgment dated 17-12-2013. 6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, the documents produced by the petitioners along with the petition i.e., document Nos. 1 to 11, so also, I have perused the private complaint and the allegations made in the private complaint filed under Section 200of Cr. P.C. by the complainant. 6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, the documents produced by the petitioners along with the petition i.e., document Nos. 1 to 11, so also, I have perused the private complaint and the allegations made in the private complaint filed under Section 200of Cr. P.C. by the complainant. I have perused the materials collected by the Investigating Officer in connection with the execution of the work said to have been entrusted to the present petitioners, so also I have perused the original file produced by the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-Lokayukta. It is no doubt true, the documents produced by the petitioners goes to show that the tender was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner and thereafterwards, work order was issued to take up the work, but perusing the mahazar proceedings drawn by the Investigating Officer by visiting the spot that too in the presence of the Panch witnesses, it goes to show prima facie that no such work was executed at the spot. But even then, petitioners have drawn the amount stating that the execution of the work is already done. Therefore, prima facie it goes to show that without executing the work by furnishing and creating false documents, petitioners have withdrawn the money sanctioned by the Government for the said projects. Materials produced by respondent-Lokayukta through the original file goes to show that the money has been withdrawn without fulfilling the conditions for the withdrawal of the said money. Therefore, as submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that public money is said to have been misappropriated and even the petitioners said to have been cheated the public by withdrawing the said money. I have also perused the decisions and the principle enunciated in the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion, in view of the serious allegations made against the present petitioners by the complainant in his complaint, so also the prima facie materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, it is necessary to have the custodial interrogation of the present petitioners to collect some more materials in this case. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. Since the main petition itself is disposed of I.A. No. 1 of 2014 seeking interim bail does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is also disposed of.