JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is a filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on regular bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 5/2017. 2. The brief facts of the case as per complaint averments are that complainant deposited the required amount and on 04.01.2003 the lease-cum-Sale Agreement was executed by the officer of KIADB. Application along with all the necessary documents, for execution of Sale Deed as per the agreement and handed over all the papers to the case worker (accused No. 2) and on enquiry accused No. 2 informed him that for execution of Sale Deed Rs. 50,000/- has to be paid. Since complainant was not having any amount he returned back. Further alleged that, on 07.01.2017 he submitted an application to the KIADB, Belagavi with a request to execute absolute Sale Deed, but he did not receive any reply. Then the complainant again, on 03.03.2017, along with his brother-in-law, had been to KIADB office and approached accused No. 2, and at that time accused No. 2 demanded Rs. 22,000/- for execution of the Sale Deed. On 22.03.2017 the brother in law of the complainant directly approached the petitioner and at that time petitioner called the accused No. 2 and they asked to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the work to be done. Since complainant was not interested in paying the bribe, a complaint came to be filed before the respondent police against the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered against accused No. 2 for the offences under Section 7, 13(i)(d) read with 13(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 1 and also the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the submission that, earlier also one case was registered against the petitioner and others in FIR No. 5/2015 for the offence under Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned counsel submitted that in the earlier case bail was granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the submission that, earlier also one case was registered against the petitioner and others in FIR No. 5/2015 for the offence under Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned counsel submitted that in the earlier case bail was granted to the petitioner. It is also his submission that one of the grounds that the bail conditions in the earlier bail petition that petitioner should not involve in other similar cases. It is also his submission that when the application seeking his release on bail in respect of the present case, was before the learned Special Judge, it came to be rejected mainly on the grounds that he violated the conditions of the earlier bail order by involving in present case. 5. Learned counsel in this connection referred to the documents pertaining to the earlier case and read the relevant paragraph then made the submission that even looking to the other material it goes to show that, as per direction given by the higher authority, the allotment was made. Hence there was no violation of rules of KIADB in allotting the said sites. He submitted that there is no prima facie materials as against present petitioner, the amount is already recovered from accused No. 2 and not from the petitioner, and hence by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be released on bail, as accused No. 2 against whom the allegation is made and from whom the amount recovered, has already been granted bail 6. Per contra the learned Special Public Prosecutor during the course of arguments made the submission that looking to the allotment of the sites, it is completely against the rules of the KIADB though they are meant for the industrial purpose given go by to the rules sites were allotted by petitioner along with some other persons. It is also submitted that the amount said to have been recovered from accused No. 2 but the material goes to show even petitioner is involved in demanding bribe amount from the complainant to do work of the complainant. Hence he submitted that at the instance of the present petitioner accused No. 2 received the bribe amount and there is also violation of conditions of the earlier bail order because of the registration of the present case. Hence he submitted that at the instance of the present petitioner accused No. 2 received the bribe amount and there is also violation of conditions of the earlier bail order because of the registration of the present case. Hence he has submitted that it is not a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. 7. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced along with the petition. 8. It is not in dispute that, earlier case was also registered in FIR No. 5/2015, wherein the present petitioner was granted with bail. But sofar as the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge in the present application for the rejection that registration of the case against present accused. Subsequently, it is shown that there is violation of the conditions of the bail order on the contrary the petitioner/accused No. 1 herein contended that he is innocent and not involved in committing alleged offences and this material prima facie goes to show at this stage that the alleged recovery amount of Rs. 50,000/- during the course of trap proceedings is not from the present petitioner. Sofar as allegation that it is at the instance of the present petitioner it is a matter for trial. Sofar as the observation of the learned Special Judge that there is violation of the condition of the earlier bail order, crime has been registered in this case. Only on that basis Court cannot come to conclusion that he committed the alleged offence. Investigation yet to be conducted, charge sheet to be filed by the respondent. Therefore regarding observation of the learned Sessions judge it is only after filing of the charge sheet and not at this stage at the registration of FIR. Accused No. 2 has been already granted bail. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Petitioner is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. 9. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No. 2 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No. 5/2017 registered by the respondent Police for the above said offences, subject to following conditions: (i) Petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No. 2 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No. 5/2017 registered by the respondent Police for the above said offences, subject to following conditions: (i) Petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court. (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. (iii) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.