Allowed

Sri. Girish. M. S. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Jan 2024CRL.P/428/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two accused in a Lokayukta bribe-trap case involving demand of Rs.2,00,000 for a Katha change sought bail after rejection at trial court level. Noting custody exceeding one month, largely completed investigation, and that accused No.2 was not present during the trap, the court granted bail subject to conditions including bonds, sureties, weekly reporting and no witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to both accused in Crime No.16/2023 with personal bond Rs.2,00,000 each plus two sureties, conditions on conduct and reporting.

Sri. Girish. M. S. Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:3743 CRL.P No. 428 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 472 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 428 OF 2024

¶8

C/W

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 472 OF 2024

¶10

IN CRL.P.428/2024

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI. GIRISH M.S., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRINIVAS, R/AT NO. 939/2, 4^TH CROSS, OLD MADRAS ROAD, IN FRONT OF RAPCMS SHANKARPURA, MANDYA CITY, KARNATAKA - 571 401.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI. MAYUR D BHANU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:3743 CRL.P No. 428 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 472 of 2024

¶20

DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, SPECIAL COUNSEL)

¶23

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.0016/2023, DATED 22.12.2023, OF LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7(a) OF P.C. ACT, PENDING BEFORE 3RD ADDL. AND SESSIONS COURT (SITTING AT S.R. PATNA) MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA.

¶24

IN CRL.P.472/2024 BETWEEN:

¶25

RANI W/O DINESH B.M. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO 117, 7TH CROSS, C BLOCK, BEHIND SAIBABA TEMPLE, J P NAGARA, MYSORE - 570 031.

¶26

…PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI. LENITA MATHIAS, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401, REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶30

…RESPONDENT

¶31

(BY SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:3743 CRL.P No. 428 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 472 of 2024

¶33

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.0016/2023 OF LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7(a) OF P.C. ACT, PENDING BEFORE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGA PATNA).

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Crl.P.No.428/2024 is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 and Crl.P.No.472/2024 is filed by the petitioneraccused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.PC for granting bail in Crime No.16/2023 registered by Lokayukta Police, Mandya for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of th e Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respective counsel appearing for the respondentLokayukta.

¶38

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint filed by Sri.P.Prashanth, before the Lokayukta

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:3743 CRL.P No. 428 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 472 of 2024

¶40

Police alleging that he has filed an application for change of Katha in respect of property stands in the name of his mother. Where accused No.1 said to be Chief Officer of Town Municipality, Srirangapatna and accused No.2 said to be Revenue Officer, working in the same office of accused No.1, are said to be demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for change of Katha. The complainant is not willing to pay the said bribe amount. Hence, he filed the complaint before the Lokayukta Police and a trap was set up by the police. Accordingly, on 23.12.2023, when the complainant went to the office of accused No.1 with a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-,

¶41

accused No.1 demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was recovered by the police. A sum of Rs.10,000/- said to be recovered from the table of accused No.2. Accordingly, both petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Their bail petitions came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶42

Learned counsel for petitioner-accused No.1 would contend that there is no demand and acceptance of

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:3743 CRL.P No. 428 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 472 of 2024

¶44

a bribe amount. Even otherwise, accused No.1 is a woman and she in judicial custody for more than one month. She is suffering from some ailments which are referred in the trial Court. She is having a son, no body is there to look after him. Most of the investigation is complete. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶45

Learned counsel for petitioner-accused No.2 would contend that accused No.2 was not at all present at the time of trap. The money was recovered from his table. He has not demanded any bribe amount. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

¶47

in both petitions objected the petitions and would contend that there was a demand for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Even on the day of the trap, accused No.1 expected a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, but the complainant has brought only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. There was a telephonic conversation between the complainant and accused No.1 intimating that he has brought only Rs.1,00,000/- because

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:3743 CRL.P No. 428 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 472 of 2024

¶49

of withdrawing limit is barred on the day. It is an admitted fact that accused No. 2 was not present at the time of recovery of amount from his table. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petitions.

¶50

Having heard the arguments and perused the records, of course there was telephonic conversation between accused No.1 and the complainant prior to the trap and registration of FIR. Subsequent to the compliant, even prior to the trap, there was a conversation between accused No.1 and the complainant, wherein the complainant stated he had brought only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, accused No.1 stated to bring it, which reveals accused No.1 has demanded and accepted the amount. However, she has been trapped, the hand wash of accused No.1 turned into pink which suggests the petitioner-accused No.1 has demanded and accepted the bribe money. However, the money was taken from the table of accused No.2, who was not present at the time of trap. More than one month, they are in custody, most of

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:3743 CRL.P No. 428 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 472 of 2024

¶52

¶53

the investigation is completed except receiving the FSL report. Accused No.1 is leading and accused No.2 was not trapped at the time of trapping accused No.1.

¶54

By looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and by imposing certain conditions, if the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

The criminal petitions are allowed .

¶57

The trial Court is directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in Crime No.16/2023, subject to the following conditions:-

¶58

i) Petitioners shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:3743 CRL.P No. 428 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 472 of 2024

¶60

ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶61

iii) Petitioners shall not indulge themselves in similar offences strictly;

¶62

iv) Petitioner shall take the trial without causing any delay; and

¶63

v) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m., for a period of two months and thereafter they should appear as and when called by the Investigating Officer and they shall cooperate with the investigating officer.

¶64

vi) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission.

¶65

If any of the conditions are violated, the prosecution

¶66

is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

KTY List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4 CT:SNN

Sri. Girish. M. S. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Girish. M. S. 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

Jayashree Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Vivek Shrivastav Vs State of Karnataka

K N Aravind Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K. G. Mudalagiriyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Bharat Bhura Chandat Vs State of Karnataka

Shri H N Prabhakar Vs the State by Deputy