Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 329 (KAR)

Gnyanu @ Gnyandev S/o Ramachandra Holkar v. State of Karnataka through The Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bidar Represented by Special Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench

2017-02-06

B.A.PATIL

body2017
ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/sole accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No. 02/2017 of Anti Corruption Bureau, Bidar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner was working as a Panchayat Development Officer at Islampur Gram Panchayat. Complainant was intending to construct a house. In that light, he applied for the permission to the petitioner. For giving the permission for the construction of the house, the petitioner demanded Rs.10,000/-. In pursuance of the said demand, on 10.01.2017, petitioner was trapped on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant and after the trap proceedings, the petitioner was apprehended and now he is in custody. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – Anti Corruption Bureau. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence alleged against him; petitioner is a law abiding citizen; the offences levelled against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life; petitioner is a Government Servant, therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded; petitioner is the only bread earner in his family. It is also contended that the trial may take some more time and the detention of the petitioner may cause hardship to him. It is further contended that the petitioner has got both movable and immovable properties, and if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. On the contrary, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – Anti Corruption Bureau has strongly objected the petition and contended that the investigation is still in progress. The petitioner is highly influenceable person and at this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses, he may meddle with the investigation and he may obstruct for the further investigation and even he may abscond and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition. 7. As could be seen from the records, even though prima-facie it reveals that the petitioner has been trapped and has been apprehended by the respondent police, but that is a matter, which has to be adjudicated and decided by the Court at the time of trial. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. When the petitioner is said to be the Panchayat Development Officer and has got both movable and immovable properties, under such circumstances, there is no chance of he being absconded. Admittedly, the trial may take some more time and if the petitioner is kept in custody, it will be affecting his rights and liberty. When the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties, under such circumstances, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions and by taking adequate security, if the petitioner is released on bail, it will safeguard the interest of the prosecution and it would meet the ends of justice. 8. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; ii. The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; iii. The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required and cooperate for the investigation; iv. The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer once in fortnight till the charge sheet is filed; v. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing without fail.