Allowed

Mr Thippeswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2021CRL.P/100279/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Petition No.100279/2021, the High Court of Karnataka allowed a petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court granted bail pending investigation in a corruption case, imposing stringent conditions including execution of a bond, surrender within 15 days, prohibition of tampering with witnesses, and mandatory court appearances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail pending investigation in Crime No.2/2020 subject to stringent conditions including bond execution and regular court appearances.

Mr Thippeswamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100279/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O OF MR. HANUMANTHAPPA ACCOUNTS SUPERINTENDENT Z P QUARTERS, FORT, BALLARI 583103

¶8

ALSO AT HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK BALLARI 583103

¶9

.. PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P.V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, BALLARI 583101 THROUGH THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. (ACB) DHARWAD BENCH, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011.

¶13

.. RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV.)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.02/2020 OF THE ACB POLICE STATION, BALLARI, PENDING ON

¶16

¶17

THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, FOR OFFENCE ALLEGED UNDER SECTION 7(a) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.2/2020 registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Ballari for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that one Sri. Veerendra Swami G.M., who is said to be a Junior Assistant Health Officer, Sandur Taluk, filed a complaint with the ACB Police, Ballari on 03.04.2020 alleging that the accused being the Accounts officer working in Zilla Panchayat, Ballari, was deputed to audit the accounts of the Primary Health Center coming under the Village Panchayat, Sandur, for the period from 2013-14 to 2018-19 and the complainant was deputed to assist the accused for providing necessary documents etc. The accused is said to have demanded

¶22

¶23

50,000/- for one Primary Health Center and 80,000/- from each Community Health Centre in total 3,80,000/- as bribe for giving the report. Later on bargaining, the amount is said to be reduced to 2,70,000/-, out of which, the accused has received an advance amount of `1,00,000/- on 31.03.2020 and said conversation is recorded in a CD and later filed a complaint. After registering the case, the police laid trap for thrice, but were not successful. However, the police issued a notice to the accused for appearing before them. Hence, apprehending arrest at the hands of the police, the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged. He has been falsely implicated. In fact, the complainant himself was suspended on 28.02.2020 itself and the question of deputing him for assisting the accused and demanding money by the accused does not arise. The alleged offence is said to have been committed in March 2020. As per the report of the police, previous traps were not successful and

¶25

¶26

no possibilities of successive trap going to be held in future. Though the alleged offence is non-bailable but are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In view of issuance of notice, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

¶27

Per contra, learned Government Pleader objected to the bail petition and contended that as per the complaint, the accused demanded 2,70,000/- as bribe and received 1,00,000/- as advance. However, the trap laid on 3 occasions failed. Investigation is pending and the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Hence prayed for rejecting the petition.

¶28

Upon considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and on perusal of the records, it goes to show that no doubt a complaint came to be filed on 03.04.2020 as against the accused who is said to have demanded bribe from the complainant and he has received `1,00,000/- on 31.03.2020. Hence, almost more than ten months are over. Further the document at Annexure-G shows that the complainant was under suspension as on 28.02.2020 and there is

¶29

¶30

no document to show that he reported to duty after suspension and the report of the Investigating Officer shows that the trap was unsuccessful and audit report is said to be already filed before the authority by the accused. The counsel also submits that a report has been submitted on 07.04.2020 itself. The alleged offence though non-bailable are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The offence is said to have been committed in the year 2020. The petitioner is said to be an officer working at Zilla Panchayat Ballari, hence, the question of fleeing from justice does not arise. The petitioner is said to be a permanent resident and ready to abide by any conditions. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, by imposing stringent conditions, if the petitioner is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case.

¶31

6. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶32

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.2/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 7(a)

¶33

¶34

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶36

ii. The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

iii. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶38

iv. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶39

v. The petitioner is deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶40

vi. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10.00 am and 4.00 pm for a period of two months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

kmv

Mr Thippeswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Thippeswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Harish S/O. Subray Hegde

Chandrappa Rayappa Itagi Vs the State by Marihal of Police

Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shubham S/O Raju Bhatkande Vs State of Karnataka

Mahadevi Bhovi W/O. Subhas Vs State of Karnataka