Allowed

Mr Yashwanth v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2021CRL.P/1232/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to a Police Inspector accused of corruption. Despite alibi claims and officer involvement, the court noted the legal requirement for demand and acceptance, pending recovery of bribe, and lack of life-imprisonment penalty as grounds for bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000, surrender within 15 days, no tampering with witnesses, and regular appearance before the Investigating Officer.

Mr Yashwanth Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1232 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MR. YASHWANTH S/O. MR. SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.O-99, H.M.T. RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS, BANGALORE – 560 064.

¶9

(ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRIME NO.1/2021 OF ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, BANGALORE CITY DIVISION).

¶10

... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR ADV., FOR SRI JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN S., ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, BANGALORE CITY DIVISION, THROUGH THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR A.C.B., KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI JEEVAN G. NEERALAGI, SPL. COUNSEL FOR A.C.B.)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.1 OF 2021 OF ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(a) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.1/2021 registered by the ACB, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’).

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of B.N.Shivashankar, the ACB Police registered a case against the present petitioner, accused Nos.2 and 3. It is alleged that the complainant is said to have purchased 5 acres of landed property in Survey No.79 of Shettigere Village, Jalahobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore for a sum of Rs.2.80 Crores and subsequently, he obtained an injunction. Thereafter, the complainant approached the

¶21

¶22

petitioner in Chikkajala Police Station and made a request in order to erect a board in the said land and give protection to the said land in view of the ad-interim stay order and pendency of the appeal before the Court. At that time accused Nos.1 and 2 said to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10.00 lakh for the said purpose and the accused is said to have received Rs.4.00 lakh as advance and while paying balance amount of Rs.6.00 lakh to accused No.2, he was trapped and the Police arrested accused No.2 and remanded to the judicial custody. It is also alleged that the complainant also approached accused No.3-the Revenue Inspector, Yelahanka Tahsildar Office who is said to have also demanded Rs.50.00 lakh for change of khatha and he is said to have received Rs.50,000/- and later he was also trapped by the Police on 7.1.2021. Both accused Nos.2 and 3 is said to have remanded to the judicial custody. The ACB Police are making hectic efforts to arrest this petitioner as he was arraigned as accused No.1 in the FIR and therefore, accused No.1 approached the Special Court for granting

¶23

¶24

anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court.

¶25

Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated by the respondent-Police. Absolutely, there is no material to show that the petitioner-accused No.1 has demanded and accepted any gratification from the complainant. The demand and acceptance are sine qua non to constitute the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. Even accused No.2 apprehended and caught redhanded with money that cannot be considered as accused No.1 has demanded any gratification from the complainant. Though there is an allegation made in the complaint that this petitioner received Rs.2.00 lakh through accused No.2 in the Police Station and Rs.2.00 lakh from the complainant in the house of Nanjappa on 1.9.2020, but there is no complaint filed within seven days as per further proviso of Section 8 of the PC Act. Complaint

¶26

¶27

came to be lodged only on 7.1.2021 i.e., after four months of the amount said to have accepted by accused No.1. Absolutely, there is no evidence against accused No.1 to show that he has demanded and accepted any gratification from the complainant. Accused No.2 though caught redhanded by the Police while receiving the bribe and has remanded to the judicial custody and recently, he has been granted bail by the trial Court under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., for non filing of charge-sheet within statutory period. There is no other material against this petitioner for rejecting the bail petition. The petitioner is a Police Inspector working in Chikkajala Police Station. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. He is ready to co-operate with the Investigating Officer and the amount is already recovered from accused No.2. This petitioner may not be required for any custodial interrogation. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

¶28

Per contra, Sri Jeevan G. Neeralagi, learned Special counsel appearing for the ACB seriously objected

¶29

¶30

the bail petition and contended that the petitioner being Police Inspector of Chikkajala Police Station, from beginning he has demanded and received gratification from the complainant. He has already received Rs.4.00 lakh from the complainant i.e., Rs.2.00 lakh in the Police Station and Rs.2.00 lakh directly from the complainant in the house of Nanjappa and the telephonic conversation between accused Nos.2 and complainant on 2.12.2020 clearly reveals that the demand made by accused No.1 from the complainant for the balance bribe amount and accordingly, accused No.2 received bribe amount on 7.1.2021 on behalf of accused No.1 and he was trapped. There is a clear material available on record against this petitioner for having committed offence and accepting Rs.4.00 lakh and further demand for Rs.6.00 lakh from the complainant. The trap clearly goes to show that accused No.1 made demand of gratification from the complainant. The investigation is still pending. The charge-sheet has also not filed because of the absconding of accused No.1. Learned special counsel submits that the petitioner is

¶31

¶32

required for custodial interrogation and also submits that petitioner-accused No.1 being Police Inspector, he should not have involved in commission of alleged offence.

¶33

On perusal of the records, it reveals that the ACB Police have trapped accused Nos.2 and 3 while accepting bribe of Rs.6.00 lakh and Rs.5.00 lakh in different traps conducted by the Police. Accused No.2 gave explanation that he has not at all accepted any bribe from the complainant even though he was trapped and seized Rs.6.00 lakh at the time of accepting bribe. The entire allegation made by the complainant that he has approached the Chikkajala Police station, at that time one Muthuraj was the Police Inspector and later, he got transferred and thereafter, accused No.2-Police Constable called the complainant over phone and informed about the transfer of Muthuraj, Police Inspector and also informed to come and meet a new Inspector Yashwanth, the accused No.1/the petitioner herein to mediate between him and complainant. The first allegation is that the complainant is

¶34

¶35

said to have handed over Rs.2.00 lakh in the Police Station to the hands of accused No.2 and in turn accused No.2 took the said amount inside the Police Station in order to hand over the same to accused No.1 and subsequently, the complaint also reveals that on 1.9.2020, this petitioner met complainant in the house of Nanjappa and received Rs.2.00 lakh from the complainant and thereafter, there is no conversation between the complainant and accused No.1, except telephonic conversation held between accused No.2 and the complainant on 2.12.2020. The telephonic conversation also reveals that the complainant want to pay remaining balance amount as demanded and the accused also says that let him come and never stated that the complainant should come with Rs.6.00 lakh as demanded by him. The conversation was read over by the Special counsel and no where it has been stated that accused No.1 has directly demanded the complainant for gratification of either Rs.10.00 lakh or remaining Rs.6.00 lakh. It is the complainant who says that he will bring Rs.6.00 lakh for that accused No.2 says “ come come, OK” .

¶36

¶37

Later the amount was accepted by accused No.2 and no conversation between accused No.1 and complainant to hand over the said amount to accused No.2. Such being the case, the contention of the learned special counsel appearing for the respondent cannot be acceptable. There is a direct demand made by accused No.2. Even otherwise, the further proviso of Section 8 of the PC Act states that if any person received bribe, a complaint must be filed within seven days from the receipt of the bribe amount. But here in this case, complaint came to be lodged on 7.1.2021 even though the amount was said to be paid on 1.9.2020. Be that as it may, accused Nos.2 and 3 were apprehended by the ACB and have been granted bail by the Special Court under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., for non-filing of charge-sheet within statutory period. Except the phone conversation, there is no other material collected by the Investigating Officer to connect this accused-petitioner with crime and also not placed any material or statement of Nanjappa recorded by the Investigating Officer in order to show the presence of Nanjappa that this petitioner

¶38

10

¶39

received Rs.2.00 lakh from the complainant. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565; Savitri Agarwal and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 325 and also Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 8 SCC 136 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that demand and acceptance is sine qua non without indispensability of proof under Section 7 and 13(2) of the PC Act would not attract. The investigation is still pending. The bribe amount of Rs.4.00 lakh is required to be recovered from accused No.1. His presence may not be required for any further investigation except for recovery of Rs.4.00 lakh. By imposing some stringent conditions, if bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would cause for the prosecution case. That apart, the alleged offence is punishable with three years upto seven years, but not punishable with death or imprisonment of life. The

¶40

¶41

petitioner is said to be working as Police Inspector in the Chikkajala Police Station and there is no previous antecedents. Therefore, I am of the view that this petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the following

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Criminal petition is allowed .

¶44

The respondent – ACB Police are directed to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.1/2021 registered by the ACB, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, subject to the following conditions:

¶45

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶46

(ii) Petitioner shall himself surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days

¶47

¶48

from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order;

¶49

(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

¶50

(iv) Petitioner shall be deemed custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and

¶51

(v) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer everyday between 10.00 a.m. to 4 p.m., for a period of 15 days and thereafter, once in a week on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. to 4 p.m., for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

GBB

Mr Yashwanth v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Yashwanth v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sitharam Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Raju C C Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. H. Puttahanumaiah @ Praveen Vs State of Karnataka

Sadashiva Thudu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Nanjundaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Sadiq Vs State by Wilson Garden Police Station