Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 203 (KAR)

B. R. Manjunath v. State Of Karnataka

2020-01-23

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.16/2019 of Vijayapur ACB Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under sections 7(a), 7A, 13(1)(a) and (b) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'PC Act). 2. The complainant in the case is the Police Inspector of the Anti Corruption Bureau Police Station, Vijayapur, who has stated that based on the complaints and credible information received by their cell about the corrupt practice said to have been being practiced by the officials and the staff at the Regional Transport Office, Vijayapur, he kept a watch on the said office on 29.11.2019, 30.11.2019 and 02.12.2019. He also collected the information from the informants as well as from the public in a secret manner. Thus, he has lodged a complaint alleging that an action against them for the offences punishable under sections 7(a), 7A, 13(1)(a) and (b) of PC Act is required to be taken. Accordingly, a complaint was registered. Subsequent to the same, on 05.12.2019 a raid was said to have been conducted upon the Regional Transport Office, Vijayapur and on some of the shops in which the middlemen were said to have been acting in aid of the officials. According to the panchanama said to have been drawn in the process, it is shown that an undeclared cash amount of a sum of Rs.28,390/- was said to have been found in the place where the Senior Motor Cycle Inspector was sitting and several of the office stationaries were also said to have been seized from the possession of the middlemen or the alleged agents who were helping the officials of the RTO office for their corrupt practice. The panchanama also alleges that from the official staff and the middlemen a sum of Rs.1,89,230/- was seized. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his argument, submitted that admittedly there is no specific allegation against the present petitioner who is the Regional Transport Officer of the said office, either in the complaint or in the office search panchanama. Even according to the said panchanama, the present petitioner who is the RTO of the said office was not in his office at the time of the alleged raid. Learned counsel further submits that the said RTO was on leave on the said day. Even according to the said panchanama, the present petitioner who is the RTO of the said office was not in his office at the time of the alleged raid. Learned counsel further submits that the said RTO was on leave on the said day. As such, he has no nexus with respect to the alleged seizure of the cash and other article. However, since he has got apprehension of his arrest, he has preferred this petition. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner being a Government official there is no chances of he absconding and he would make himself readily available for investigation as and when it is required. 4. Learned Special Prosecutor for ACB, who has filed his statement of objections, while reiterating the contentions taken up in the statement of objections, even in his argument also, submitted that the present petitioner is admittedly the Regional Transport Officer of the office of the RTO at Vijayapur who was on duty even on the day of the alleged raid dated 05.12.2019. Though he was not present when the raid was conducted, but probably getting the information of the alleged raid, he did not return to his office nor was amenable and accessible to the raiding team. The learned Special Prosecutor further submitted that the very modus operandi of the RTO office and its official, as recorded in the office search panchanama, would clearly go to show that all of them were making use of middlemen and agents for their illegal and corrupt practice. As such, since the investigation is still in progress, for which the apprehension of the present petitioner is also required, the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. The primary document which requires an attention at this stage is the office search panchanama said to have been drawn by the respondent police. A certified copy of the same is produced along with the petition. In the said panchanama it is specifically stated that the raiding team conducted a search and inspection in the office of the RTO, Vijayapur. The present petitioner who admittedly is the Regional Transport Officer of the said office was not available in the office. The said panchanama says that he had left the office at about 1 o clock in the afternoon. The present petitioner who admittedly is the Regional Transport Officer of the said office was not available in the office. The said panchanama says that he had left the office at about 1 o clock in the afternoon. Thus, it falsifies the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner was on leave on the said day. 6. However, a perusal of the said panchanama at this stage and prima facie would go to show that no incriminating material appears to have been either seized or noticed in the chambers of the present petitioner who is the RTO of the said office. The alleged amount of Rs.28,390/- which was said to be unaccounted money was said to have been found in the place where the Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector was said to be sitting and discharging his work. Rest all of the amount are said to have been seized from the possession of the alleged middlemen and the agents who according to the panchanama were acting in the aid of the officials of the RTO office, Vijayapur in carrying illegal and corrupt practice in the day-to-day functioning of the office. However, the truthfulness in the said observation made in the panchanama could only be ascertained in a fullfledged trial. 7. For the purpose of the present petition, suffice it to say that no direct allegations about the direct involvement of the present petitioner appears to have been made in the search panchanama. Since the petitioner is a Government servant in service, his availability for investigation purposes and appearance before the Court can be ensured by imposing reasonable conditions. The prosecution could not even convince this Court as to the necessity of apprehending the present petitioner for the investigation purposes. For the said reasons, I am of the view that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner be granted the relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. In case the complainant-police apprehends the petitioner, in their station Crime No.16/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 7A, 13(1)(a) and (b) of PC Act, he be enlarged on bail, subject to the conditions that: i) The accused/petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.60,000/- with two local solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging authority/ Court. ii) The accused/petitioner shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the case is pending, within ten days from today. iii) The accused/petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Thursday between 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and mark his attendance till the final report is filed. iv) The accused/petitioner shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and materials in any manner. v) The accused/petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without the prior permission of the court in which the case is pending. vi) The accused/petitioner to give in writing about the change in his address, if any, to the Investigating Officer as and when such change occurs and obtain an acknowledgement in that regard.