Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1040 (KAR)

A. M. Shankar v. State of Karnataka

2022-08-10

K.NATARAJAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The Crl.P.No.6409/2022 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 and Cril.P.No.6883/2022 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for granting regular bail in Crime No.15/2022 registered by A.C.B. Police, Mysuru for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of corruption act (Amended Act 2018) herein referred as PC Act, pending on the file of 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge and special Court Mysuru. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases and special counsel for the respondent. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Siddaraju a retired teacher filed complaint to the respondent police on 20.06.2022 alleging that he was retired teacher worked at Changowdanahalli Primary School and retired on 31.5.2022 and for the purpose of getting his pension he had applied to Block Education Officer (B.E.O), H.D. Kote, for moving his file to the Auditor General Office. On 19.6.2022 when he approached accused No.1 the Second Division Clerk, namely Ravi and asked about his file and for that the accused No.1 said to have demanded bribe of Rs.5000/- to the accused No.2 who is B.E.O. and Rs.2000/- for accused No.3 who is Superintendent and another Rs.2000/- for the Manager totally Rs.9000/- and for himself he demanded any such amount as per pleasure of the complainant. The complainant is not willing to pay the bribe amount and he recorded the conversation and filed the complaint to the police. Subsequently a trap was set up on 23.6.2022, the amount was sent through the Sister-in-law of the complainant as the complainant said to be handicapped. The accused No.2 said to have accepted Rs.5000/- and accused No.3 was caught while accepting Rs.2000/-. They have arrested and after seizing the cash, the police got remanded them to the judicial custody. The bail petition of the accused persons were rejected by the Sessions Court, hence they are before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 has contended that the petitioners not at all received or accepted any bribe amount of Rs.5000/- but it was kept in a file by a woman who is unconnected with the case. The telephonic conversation also revealed these petitioner not demanded any bribe and she had spoken to the petitioner in respect of her file, who was a suspended teacher. The telephonic conversation also revealed these petitioner not demanded any bribe and she had spoken to the petitioner in respect of her file, who was a suspended teacher. The investigation likely to complete, the petitioner is in custody for more than one and half month and is ready to abide any condition, hence prayed for granting bail. 5. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.3 has contended the telephonic conversation is altogether different and there is no demand made by the petitioner and as per the complaint the demand was made by the accused No.1 who is a clerk. The amount was issued by the accused No.3 which was kept on the table and he is not aware about the money given by the Sister-in-law of the complainant. The investigation is almost complete. Except FSL report nothing is to be received by the Investigation Officer except a formality of filing charge sheet and hence prayed for granting bail. 6. Per contra learned Special Counsel seriously objected the petition by filing statement of objections and contended that the accused Nos.2 and 3 were caught red handed for having accepted Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- respectively. The conversation clearly reveals, the demand made by the accused persons, for moving the file of the complainant. Though the amount was taken by the Sister-in-law of the complainant for handing over the amount as the complainant was handicapped, therefore the instruction given by the Investigation Officer to the Sister-in-law of the complainant for the purpose of trap. There is telephonic conversation and also the conversation were recorded by the Sister-in-law of the complainant reveals the demand made by the accused for doing official favours. There is a prime facie case made out against them. The investigation is still pending, and hence prayed for rejecting the bail petition. 7. Having heard the arguments for both sides and perused the records, which reveals, admittedly the defacto complainant / informant was a retired teacher who had made an application for getting his pensionary benefits to the office of the accused No.2 at HD Kote. The accused No.1 said to be the Office Clerk i.e., SDA and has demanded Rs.9000/- for moving the file to AG office. The accused No.1 said to be the Office Clerk i.e., SDA and has demanded Rs.9000/- for moving the file to AG office. He has specifically demanded Rs.5000/- for BEO, Rs.2000/- for Office Superintendent/accused No.3 and another Rs.2000/- for Manager, when the amount was given by the Sister-in-law of the complainant, which was received by the accused No.2 which was asked to be kept on a file and the same was seized by the police. Ofcourse he has not received the cash with his hands, but it was seized from the table under the office files. Whereas, the accused No.3 was caught red handed while accepting Rs.2000/- and his hand wash also turned into pink, when it was washed in the sodium carbonate solution. Both of them were arrested by police including accused No.1, the SDA. The investigation is still pending, police have not yet filed the charge sheet.. All the accused persons we working in same BEO office. Therefore until completion of investigation, I am of the view the petitioners are not entitled for bail at this stage. Apart from that, it is unfortunate incident that the accused being BEO and their officials demanded a bribe from the retired teacher who served the institution for long years and for getting pensionary benefits demanding bribe and while accepting they all were trapped. Therefore, pending investigation I am of the view the petitioners are not entitled for bail. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for bail. Accordingly, both criminal petitions filed by accused Nos.2 and 3, are dismissed.