JUDGMENT : 1. Since these two petitions are in respect of the same crime number and similar questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, they are taken together to dispose of them by this common order in order to avoid repetition of discussion of law and facts. 2. Crl.P.No.10298/2017 is filed by accused No.2 and Crl.P.No.184/2018 is filed by accused No.1, both under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking their release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered in respondent - police station Crime No.50/2017. 3. The allegation in the complaint is, the complainant's father Papanna succeeded to 1 acre 37 guntas of land in Sy.No.56 of Gottigere village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk under a Will, from his grand father. Yet, nephews of his father raised dispute in RRT 55/2013-14 about the said land and the same is pending consideration on the file of Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru South taluk. On 29.5.2016, his father Papanna died. Complainant approached the office of Special Tahsildar and could not get any information about the same. DC directed the said office to provide information, but in vain. Accused No.1 took charge as Special Tahsildar of Bengaluru South Taluk. The said case was heard and posted for orders. On 8.12.2017, complainant approached accused No.1 and enquired about the case. It is alleged that accused No.1 summoned one boy by name Madhu and instructed the complainant to negotiate with the said Madhu, who demanded bribe of Rs.20 lakhs to get a favourable order. Again on 11.12.2017, complainant allegedly approached accused No.1, but he was instructed to talk to the said Madhu and complainant spoke to Madhu over mobile phone. However, the complainant allegedly informed Madhu that he is ready to pay Rs.12 lakhs for orders in his favour. Thereafter, complaint came to be lodged before the Anti-Corruption Bureau and trap was laid. On the basis of materials, petitioner in Crl.P.No.10298/2017 is arrayed as accused No.2 and petitioner in Crl.P.No.184/2018 is arrayed as accused No.1. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 1 respectively and also the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent, in both the petitions. 5. On the basis of materials, petitioner in Crl.P.No.10298/2017 is arrayed as accused No.2 and petitioner in Crl.P.No.184/2018 is arrayed as accused No.1. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 1 respectively and also the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent, in both the petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.10298/2017 during the course of his arguments submitted that he is a private person and he does not know who the Special Tahsildar is. He was never instructed by accused No.1 to receive the bribe amount from the complainant and that he has not received any amount from the complainant at all. Even if it is assumed that he has committed the alleged offences, at the most, it may attract the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for which, punishment prescribed is less than five years. He has submitted that marriage of the petitioner is fixed on 11.2.2018 and he has also produced his wedding card along with the petition. Hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, he may be admitted to regular bail. 6. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner- accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.184/2018 has submitted that trap proceedings are against accused No.2 and accused No.1 is not involved in the trap proceedings. No amount is recovered from the possession of accused No.1. As per the case of the prosecution when the complainant approached accused No.1, he told the complainant to approach accused No.2 to negotiate the matter. But accused No.1 never told the complainant to approach accused No.2 in connection with payment of alleged bribe amount and only false allegations are made against him. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner-accused No.1 may be enlarged on bail. 7. Per-contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposing both the petitions submitted that looking to the prosecution material there is a prima facie case as against both the petitioners. A successful trap was conducted, that too accused No.2 himself has received the amount and his hand wash was taken in sodium carbonate solution and result of FSL is also positive, which prima facie shows his involvement in commission of the alleged offences. He has submitted that huge amount of Rs.20 lakhs is involved in the case. Hence, it is submitted that petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. 8. He has submitted that huge amount of Rs.20 lakhs is involved in the case. Hence, it is submitted that petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. 8. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petitions, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record in both the petitions. 9. Looking to the prosecution materials it is seen that trap was laid and as per the trap proceedings conducted, before accused No.2 receiving the alleged amount, the notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and immediately after the trap, the hand wash of accused No.2 was taken in the sodium carbonate solution, which turned into pink colour and FSL report is also positive in this regard. However, the petitioners herein have denied the entire allegations contending that there is a false implication. Both the petitioners have contended that they have never received the said amount. They are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Apart from that, learned counsel appearing for accused No.2 has produced the wedding card to show that his marriage is fixed on 11.2.2018. Petitioners have undertaken to co-operate with the investigation agency. Hence, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be enlarged on bail. 10. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. Petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 1 respectively, are ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered in respondent - police station Crime No.50/2017, subject to the following conditions: (i). Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (ii). Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. (iii). Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.