Allowed

Mansoor a v. State by Acb Police

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2021CRL.P/7660/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted bail to three accused persons charged under sections 7(a), 7A of PC Act and 120B of IPC for corruption offences. The court held that since the investigation was incomplete and no repeat offender status was established, detention infringed their right to liberty, ordering bail subject to sureties and conditions regarding witness safety. Disposition: Allowed bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties each, conditioned not to commit offences, tamper with witnesses, or abscond.

Mansoor a Vs State by Acb Police — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7660/2021

¶7

c/w

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7693/2021

¶9

c/w

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7657/2021

¶11

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7660/2021

¶12

BETWEEN :

¶13

MANSOOR.A S/O LATE AMEER SAB AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS DRIVER R/AT: NEAR MARUTHI SCHOOL 3^RD WARD, VEDAVATHINAGAR HIRIYUR TOWN – 577 599.

¶14

… PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI:MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND :

¶17

STATE BY ACB POLICE CHITRADURGA REPRESENTED BY SPL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS

¶18

¶19

BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶20

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI:P.N.MANMOHAN, SPL.P.P.)

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7693/2021

¶22

BETWEEN :

¶23

MOHAN KUMAR M.B. S/O M BALA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AS SHERISTEDAR SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE CHALLAKERE ROAD HIRIYUR TOWN – 577 599.

¶24

R/AT MELINA KOPOA MAJARE NAIDAVALLI VILLAGE MANDAGADDE HOBLI, THEERTHALLI TALUK SHIMOGA – 577 432.

¶25

… PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI:ZAMEER PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND : STATE BY ACB POLICE CHITRADURGA REPRESENTED BY SPL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE – 560 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI:P.N.MANMOHAN, SPL.P.P.)

¶28

¶29

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7657/2021

¶30

BETWEEN :

¶31

SRI.VEERESH KUMAR.A S/O AMARANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S.L.A.O. S.L.A.O OFFICE CHALLAKERE ROAD, HIRIYUR TOWN R/AT NO.B112/BRIGADE PANORAMA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 050. < …PETITIONER

¶32

(BY SRI:ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHANTHI BHUSHAN.H, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND :

¶34

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ACB P.S. CHITRADURGA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶35

… RESPONDENT

¶36

(BY SRI:P.N.MANMOHAN, SPL.P.P.)

¶37

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.11/2021 OF ACB POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7(a), 7A OF P.C. ACT AND SECTION 120B OF IPC.

¶38

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

The petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are before

¶42

this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.11/2021 of ABC Police Station, Chitradurga, pending on the Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 7A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Smt.Netra.

¶43

Heard Sri.Muzaffar Ahmed, learned Counsel, Sri.Zameer Pasha, learned counsel and Sri.Ashok Karanahalli, learned Sr.Counsel and Sri.Shanthi Bhushan.H, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned Spl.P.P., for the respondent - State. Perused the materials on record.

¶44

Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7657/2021 submits that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. Learned counsel for

¶45

¶46

the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7660/2021 and

¶47

Crl.P.No.7693/2021, submit that the petitioners are arrayed as accused No.3 and 2 respectively. They are innocent and have not committed any offences as alleged. They are falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. It is submitted that all the accused were apprehended on 14.09.2021 and since then they are in judicial custody. Accused No.1 is working as Special Land Acquition Officer, Chitradurga. Accused No.2, is the Manager/Shirestedar in the office of accused No.1 and accused No.3 is said to be the driver. The informant lodged the first information stating that an amount of Rs.90 lakhs was due to her as compensation from the office of accused No.1. When she contacted accused No.1 for payment of compensation amount, he directed him to contact accused No.2. Accused No.2 in turn demanded to produce documents. Accused No.3, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.6 lakhs on behalf of accused No.1 and 2, in the house of the complainant. Accordingly, informant paid 5 lakhs to accused No.3 and informed to ACB. As soon as the amount was received,

¶48

¶49

accused No.3, had gone to the house of accused No.2, where trap was held and the amount was recovered. Learned senior counsel submitted that accused No.1 was not at all in picture in the entire incident. On the other hand the materials on record disclose that accused No.1 had never demanded any amount as alleged. Similarly, learned counsel representing accused Nos.2 and 3, submitted that accused No.2 is working as Manager and accused No.3 is the private person who has nothing to do with the offence in question. It is stated that the amount was recovered from the custody of accused Nos.2 and 3, in the house of accused No.2. Investigation is almost completed. These petitioners are not required to be detained in custody. Detention of the petitioners in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioners are the permanent resident of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petitions and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶50

¶51

Per contra, learned Spl.P.P., opposing the

¶52

petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. On the basis of the first information lodged by the informant, FIR was registered. Pre-trap panchanama was drawn. Accused No.3 accepted the illegal gratification on behalf of accused Nos.1 and 2 and subsequently, went to the house of accused No.2 and paid the amount. In the meantime, accused Nos.2 and 3 were trapped in the house of accused No.2. It is a clear case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for showing the official favour. Accused No.1 even though refused to talk over phone in the matter of demand for illegal gratification, he was careful to talk through whatsapp, that shows the guilty mind of accused No.1. Investigation is still in progress. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, these petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶53

¶54

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶55

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶56

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶57

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶58

R E A S O N S

¶59

The materials on record disclose that serious

¶60

allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. Even though, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel, that accused No.1 was not at all in picture, the same cannot be accepted at this stage. Even the phone conversation do not suggest that accused No.1 is completely innocent. Even according to the prosecution, the bribe money is already recovered. The investigation is still in progress. Admittedly, petitioners are not required for further investigation. It is not the

¶61

¶62

contention of the prosecution that the petitioners are repeat offenders. Therefore, detention of the petitioners in custody would amount to infringement of their right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioners may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶63

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶64

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

The petitions are allowed.

¶67

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in

¶68

ACB Crime No.11/2021 registered by the ACB police station, Chitradurga, pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with

¶69

¶70

two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the

¶71

jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶72

a). The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.

¶73

b). The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶74

c). The petitioners shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶75

If in case, the petitioners violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶76

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioners and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to

¶77

¶78

accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioners on bail.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

GVP

Mansoor a v. State by Acb Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansoor a v. State by Acb Police

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

Yogesh S K Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Mohammed Iqbal

Union of India Vs Bharath Thupakula

Mr Abhishek @ Small Abhi Vs the State of Karnataka

Lohith S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh Dhaduti Vs State of Karnataka