Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1238 (KAR)

M. Chidanand Rao v. State

2015-11-09

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2015
ORDER : Budihal R.B., J. 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent -- police to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered in Crime No. 02/2015. The brief facts of the prosecution's case as per the complaint averments are that on 03.09.2015 at about 5.00 p.m., one Raju Oran, permanent resident of Hajaribag Jharkhand filed a complaint against the Police Inspector and a constable, i.e., the present petitioners, for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is mentioned in the complaint that the complainant is the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-22/C-2154 and on 02.09.2015 at about 7.45 p.m., the complainant left BMM Factory by his truck loading 35 ton of sponge iron for delivery to Shivam Factory, Konde. At about 8.45 p.m., near T.B. Dam circle, a person in uniform along with a police jeep stopped the lorry of the complainant and asked for the documents, for which the said officer told that the goods in the lorry are over loaded and the complainant resisted for which the officer scolded him and demanded from him Rs. 15,000/- to release the lorry. Thereafter, the complainant called his owner by his mobile phone and gave the mobile phone to one person standing by the side of jeep to talk with his owner. The complainant does not have the knowledge of Kannada language and as such, he could not understand the conversation taken place between the standing person and the owner. In the meantime, a police officer standing on the spot slapped the complainant on his cheek and the complainant told that his owner is bringing the amount. The officer left the lorry near the circle and took the documents at about 9.00 p.m. Later at about 9.30 p.m., the said officer along with his staff came and took the lorry to the weighment bridge and after weighing, the lorry was brought to the police station. At that time, the time was about 11.30 p.m. Later the lorry was handed over to the RTO office along with the documents. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners - accused Nos. At that time, the time was about 11.30 p.m. Later the lorry was handed over to the RTO office along with the documents. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners - accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Lokayukta. 3. The Counsel for the petitioners made the submission that, looking to the documents in this case, they clearly goes to show that the lorry which was proceeding having loaded sponge iron was overloaded. Therefore, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who are the police, stopped the lorry and they have inquired with the driver of the lorry and the lorry was taken to the weighbridge and after weighing the lorry, it was handed over to the RTO office along with documents. It is transpired that, there was overloading of lorry. Hence the petitioners insisted the driver to pay the amount in respect of overloading of the sponge iron in the said vehicle. The Counsel further made his submission that the documents clearly go to show that the driver of the lorry has made the payment by Demand Draft. He draw the attention of this Court to the said document also. Therefore, it is his submission that the petitioners never demanded Rs. 15,000/- bribe amount for releasing the vehicle, but on the contrary, after the payment has been made, the vehicle was handed over to the RTO. Hence he submitted that the contention of the present petitioners is not only real, it is also supported by the documentary evidence at this stage. Hence he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioners may be admitted to anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, the learned standing Counsel for the respondent-Lokayukta during the course of his arguments made the submission that the material on record clearly goes to show that there was a demand for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as a bribe to release the vehicle. The learned Counsel further made a submission that, when the petitioners conversing with the owner of the said lorry over the mobile phone also, there was a demand for the amount. Therefore, he submitted that there is a prima facie material placed by the respondent-Lokayukta that the present petitioners have committed the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, he submitted that there is a prima facie material placed by the respondent-Lokayukta that the present petitioners have committed the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Counsel however made the submission that the matter is still under investigation and from the date of the incident till today, the present petitioners have not at all appeared before the Investigating Officer. Hence it is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail. 5. Perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other documents produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 6. Looking to the documents produced at this stage, they support the contention of the present petitioners that the lorry was overloaded with the sponge iron, for which the petitioners took the lorry to the weighbridge and after weighing the lorry, the drivers were asked to pay the fine for overloading. Accordingly, they paid the amount by demand draft, for which also there is a document. It is no doubt true that, even on the side of respondent-Lokayukta, there is an allegation in the complaint that the petitioners demanded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as bribe for releasing the vehicle. When the contention of the petitioners is supported by the documentary evidence regarding the allegation of the prosecution, it is a matter to be taken into consideration during the course of the trial. With regard to the apprehension of the learned Counsel for the respondent-Lokayukta that the petitioners are not co-operating with the Investigating Officer in investigating the matter and uptil now they have not appeared before the Investigating Officer is concerned, reasonable conditions can be imposed to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. The alleged offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is also not punishable, with death or imprisonment for life. 7. Considering all these materials on record, I am of the opinion that by imposing conditions the petitioners can be admitted to anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence, subject to the following conditions: (i) Each of the petitioners to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The respondent police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence, subject to the following conditions: (i) Each of the petitioners to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (ii) They shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witness directly or indirectly. (iii) They have to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and to co- operate with the Investigating Officer in the matter. (iv) They have to appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and to execute a personal bond and also surety bond.