Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 47 (KAR)

Govindaswamy v. State of Karnataka

2014-01-10

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2014
ORDER : Budihal R.B., J. 1. This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered in Respondent Police Station in Cr. No. 12/2013. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the complainant filed the complaint before the Respondent Police alleging that he has leased his house situated behind Idgah Maidan to Ramanagara Zilla Panchayat in the year 2011 for the purpose of running the student hostel at the monthly rent of Rs. 49,000/-per month. The Ramanagara Zilla Panchayat has not paid the rents till 26.11.2013 which is totally amounting to Rs. 09,40,483/-. In that regard, he has approached the Ramanagara Zilla Panchayat and they have instructed him to approach the District Treasury Office as the bill has already been sent to the District Treasury. 2. It is further alleged that the complainant had approached and enquired the case worker Sri Govindaswamy, the petitioner herein with regard to arrears of rent bill sent by the Zilla Panchayat and petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to pass the bill. It is further alleged that the complainant Shivalingaiah has informed the petitioner to pass the bill and let the petitioner claim to be made in this regard. On 26.11.2013, the petitioner visited the house of the complainant and told the complainant Shivalingaiah that if he pay the amount, the bill will be passed and the complainant has informed the accused/petitioner that he will pay Rs. 5,000/- at present as he has no sufficient amounts as demanded by the accused/petitioner and the accused had informed him that if the complainant pay Rs. 5,000/-, the bill be passed and left the place after receipt of Rs. 5,000/-. It is alleged that since the accused is demanding Rs. 5,000/- to pass the arrears of rent bill, the complainant has approached the Ramanagara Lokayuktha Office and informed the same about the incident and then, on 27.11.2013, the police lead the trap and booked the case against the petitioner. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the Special Prosecutor for the Respondent State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that false allegations are made against the petitioner/accused. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the Special Prosecutor for the Respondent State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that false allegations are made against the petitioner/accused. He never demanded the bribe amount to pass the rent bill from the Treasury. The learned counsel also made the submission that the trap was lead on 27.11.2013 at about 4.00 p.m. Before the trap, the rent bill was passed from the Treasury and even the cheque was issued. The learned counsel filed the memo producing the said documents. He further made the submission that this fact has been addressed by the complainant in his complaint. He has submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and is ready to abide by any conditions. The petitioner may be released on bail. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent during the course of his arguments submitted that there is a prima facie material as against the petitioner that he has demanded the bribe amount to clear the rent bill from Treasury. The matter is still under investigation and if released on bail, the petitioner may abscond and he may tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the learned prosecutor submitted that till the completion of the investigation, petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the order passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara on the bail application and also perused the documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the memo. It is true that according to the case of the prosecution, trap was lead on 27.11.2013 and the petitioner said to have been caught red handed when he was receiving Rs. 4,000/- bribe amount. The offences alleged under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not exclusively punishable with the punishment of death or imprisonment for life. Petitioner has undertaken in the petition that he is innocent and is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions duly imposed by this Court and he will also co-operate with the I.O. With regard to the apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may abscond and he may tamper the prosecution witnesses, reasonable conditions can be imposed to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. If there is any violation of the conditions, the prosecution is always at liberty to move the Court seeking cancellation of the bail. Therefore, looking into the materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. In the result, the petition is allowed and the Principal District And Sessions Judge, Ramanagar, are directed to release the petitioner on bail for the alleged offences registered in Cr. No. 12/2013 subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court; (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses; and (iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.