Vasudev R.N vs State By Anti Corruption Bureau ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1555 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.543/2022

BETWEEN:

VASUDEV R.N.,
S/O LATE T. NAGALINGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.167, 6TH CROSS
3RD MAIN ROAD, KENGERI UPANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 060.                        ... PETITIONER

        (BY SRI VINAYAKA B. VISHNU BATTA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY
ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU (ACB)
BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU.                ... RESPONDENT

       (BY SRI P.N.MANMOHAN., SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.7/2021 OF ACB, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 13(1)(B), 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, ON THE FILE OF THE IX
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.01.2022 'THROUGH VIDEO
                                 2



CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking

regular bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.7/2021, Anti-

Corruption Bureau, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru, for the offences

punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment 2018) ('PC

Act' for short).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-

Anti Corruption Bureau.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that, from the date of the petitioner joining the Government

service in 1995 till his retirement in 2021, he has acquired

disproportionate assets more than his actual source of income.

It is also submitted that during this period, he acquired both

movable and immovable assets worth Rs.6,93,90,000/- and

Rs.5,43,90,000/- in excess of the known source of income i.e.,

Rs.2,07,00,000/-. Hence, the illegal acquisition of both movable

and immovable properties of the petitioner is to the extent of

262.75% as per the source of information. Hence, case has

been registered in Crime No.7/2021 for the offences punishable

under Sections 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act.

4. It is also the case of the prosecution that, based on

registration of the case, search was conducted in respect of the

house of the petitioner herein and secured the materials. After

the search, it is seen that the illegal assets of the petitioner is to

the extent of Rs.30,65,39,868/- i.e., disproportionate assets to

the extent of 1,408%. The matter is under investigation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that a false case and a false FIR has been

registered against the petitioner, without there being any cogent

material and complaint is filed only based on assumptions and

presumptions. Nirmiti Kendra, in which the petitioner was

working as Project Director is a Society under Societies

Registration Act and he does not get any government facilities

like salary, remuneration, P.F. and also pension. But, the

petitioner has worked with utmost sincerity without any blemish

on his record. The petitioner was also tested positive for Covid-

19 in the month of April, 2021 and was admitted to Hospital. He

had suffered from pneumonia, Type-I Respiratory failure. The

petitioner was also diagnosed for Type-II Diabetes Mellitus and

his condition is critical. He was discharged from Hospital in the

month of May, 2021 and his health condition has worsened. This

petitioner is in judicial custody from 27.11.2021 and if he is

continued in jail, there is a threat to his life. He would also

submit that the respondent-police have not mentioned the actual

market value of the properties of the petitioner and the same is

shown as exorbitant. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in

support of his argument, relied upon the order passed by this

Court in Crl.P.No.9688/2021, wherein in a case of

disproportionate assets, this Court has held that though the

offence is non-bailable, but not punishable with death or

imprisonment for life and the accused is not required to be kept

in jail, till filing of the charge-sheet. The counsel also would

vehemently contend that the petitioner is not a Government

employee and whether it attracts the offence punishable under

PC Act or not has to be decided, after considering the matter on

merits. The petitioner is in custody from the date of his arrest

and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

7. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor

appearing for respondent would vehemently contend that in

terms of source of information, the assets of the petitioner was

262.75%, but, after conducting the raid and securing the

material, the disproportionate assets of the petitioner is to the

extent of 1,408%. Hence, it is a heinous offence and though the

offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the

Court has to take note of the seriousness and gravity of the

offence which has been invoked against the petitioner herein

which is an offence against the society at large. Hence, he is not

entitled for bail.

8. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the FIR, an allegation is made against the petitioner

that he is having disproportionate assets to the extent of

262.75%. However, on conducting raid, it is seen that

disproportionate assets of the petitioner is to the extent of

30,65,39,868/- i.e., disproportionate assets to the extent of

1,408%. After conducting search and on perusal of the material

available before the Court, it is seen that the petitioner has

acquired the properties in his name, his wife and also his son.

The total assets of the petitioner now is to the tune of

Rs.30,65,39,868/- i.e., disproportionate assets to the extent of

1,408%. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court

that charge-sheet has already been filed as noted in the order

sheet but, the charge-sheet materials are not placed before the

Court, in order to analyze the same whether the petitioner has

disproportionate assets of 1,408% other than his legal source of

income and the same can be assessed only after considering the

charge-sheet material.

9. It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for

the petitioner has also not placed before the Court the charge-

sheet materials, except the panchanama. No doubt, the

petitioner was inpatient in the Hospital from 27.04.2021 to

10.05.2021, however, the raid was conducted subsequent to his

discharge from the Hospital and the case is also registered

subsequent to his discharge and raid was conducted on

23.11.2021, 26.11.2021 and 02.12.2021 and gathered the

materials. The records also disclose that huge number of

properties are acquired in his name, his wife and also in the

name of his son. When such being the factual aspects of the

case, unless the charge-sheet materials are placed before the

Court, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion at this stage.

10. No doubt, in the case of disproportionate assets, the

Court has to take note of the material available on record and

this Court in a similar circumstance, granted bail in

Crl.P.No.9688/2021, wherein the disproportionate assets of the

petitioner therein was 153% i.e., excess of his actual income,

but, in the case on hand, the disproportionate assets of the

petitioner herein is 1,408%. Hence, the said judgment is not

applicable to the case on hand and it is not a fit case to exercise

the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. at this juncture without

the charge-sheet material before the Court.

11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is rejected.

(ii) However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court along with the charge-sheet material.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST