Karnataka High Court
Sri. Raghuveer. H. U vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5136/2022
C/w.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5198/2022
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5396/2022
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5648/2022
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5865/2022
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5136/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI C.N. SHASHIDHAR
S/O. C. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.152, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
CHENNARAYAPATNA
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116.
2. SRI SHARATH KUMAR R.
S/O. B. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA
MYLARAPATNA ROAD
BEHIND KEB, NAGAMANGALA
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI C.R. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CID (HIGH GROUND POLICE)
BENGALURU
2
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU- 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.S. HEGDE, SPP-II A/W.
SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.60/2022 OF HIGH GROUNDS P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B R/W. 34 OF IPC
ON THE FILE OF THE I A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5198/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAGHUVEER. H. U.
S/O. UMESH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT DONAKUPPE VILLAGE
AGALAKOTE HAND POST, KASABA HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION
(NOW CID POLICE, BENGALURU)
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE
BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.S. HEGDE, SPP-II A/W.
SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.60/2022 OF HIGH GROUNDS P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B, 409 R/W. 34 OF
IPC ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5396/2022
BETWEEN:
NAVEEN PRASAD
S/O. K.V. VENKATAGIRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OCC: SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560 091 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI CHETHAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.S. HEGDE, SPP-II A/W.
SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.60/2022 OF HIGH
GROUNDS P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S.128B, 120, 465, 468, 471 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
IPC.
4
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5648/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI DILEEP KUMAR C.K.
S/O. C.D. KEMPPANNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT NO.179C
4TH CROSS, FOREST LAYOUT
R.V. COLLEGE POST
KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH
BENGALURU-560 059.
2. SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR H.R.
S/O. K. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO.275
HODIKE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
HONGANOOR, CHANNPATTANA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION
(NOW CID POLICE BENGALURU)
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.S. HEGDE, SPP-II A/W.
SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
5
CR.NO.60/2022 OF HIGH GROUNDS P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B R/W. 34 OF IPC
ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST A.C.M.M, AT BENGALURU.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5865/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. SURINARAYANA K.
S/O. LATE KAMBE GOWDA
AGE: 30 YEARS
OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O. GIDDENAHALLI
DASANAPURA HOBLI
KADABAGERE POST
BENGALURU-562 130. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LT. CDR. AVINASH SABARAD (RETD.), ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY PP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.S. HEGDE, SPP-II A/W.
SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.60/2022 OF HIGH GROUNDS P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B R/W. 34 OF IPC, ON
THE FILE OF THE I ACMM, BENGALURU.
6
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.07.2022 AND THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Crl.P.No.5136/2022 is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in
Cr.No.60/2022 of High Grounds police station, Bengaluru city for
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471,
120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The Crl.P.No.5198/2022 is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.60/2022
of High Grounds police station, Bengaluru city for the offences
punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B, 409 read
with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The Crl.P.No.5396/2022 is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of
his arrest in Cr.No.60/2022 of High Grounds police station,
Bengaluru city for the offences punishable under Sections 128B,
120, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. The Crl.P.No.5648/2022 is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in
Cr.No.60/2022 of High Grounds police station, Bengaluru city for
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471,
120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. The Crl.P.No.5865/2022 is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.60/2022 of High Grounds police station, Bengaluru city for
the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420,
120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor
(SPP) and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for the respondent-State.
7. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that in the complaint dated 30.04.2022, an allegation is made
that the Government has issued a Notification
No.98/Recruitment/2/2020-21 for the post of 545 PSI (Civil)
posts and in conducting the examination process, accused
persons have indulged in malpractice as a result, the persons
who have indulged in such acts, their names are also found in
the selection list and the same is done in tampering OMR sheets
which are not tallied with carbon copy which is in the possession
of the candidates and also found some of 22 persons OMR
papers are tampered and prima facie found indulged in such acts
and candidates who have appeared before the enquiry have not
given proper answer and their names are also listed in the
complaint. It is also an allegation that the candidates and other
accused persons have also indulged in such acts. Hence, the
aforesaid cases have been registered in Cr.No.60/2022 for the
aforesaid offences against the respective petitioners.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Crl.P.No.5198/2022 submits that the petitioner is arraigned as
accused No.4 and he has not indulged in such act and he is
having good reputation in the locality and there is no criminal
antecedents against this petitioner and he is studying in
Sheshadripuram Law College at Bengaluru in 4th Semester (3
years LL.B) course and in view of the registration of the case,
apprehended him and he is unable to attend the classes as well
as practical regularly. In fact he has taken coaching in the
"Jannagangothri" coaching centre and produced ID cards in
respect of coaching centre as well as college. The police have
purposefully, intentionally and deliberately implicated him in the
case and he is an innocent person and he has not committed any
offences as alleged in the complaint and he is in custody from
the date of the arrest and in view of the judicial custody, his
personal liberty is affected and a frivolous complaint is filed
against the petitioner. The counsel further submits that the
complaint is a cooked up complaint and not in accordance with
Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. and penal provisions which have been
invoked not attracts against him and he has not used any forged
documents and not committed illegal act and the counsel further
submits that he is 22 years old and his father is also suffering
from medical ailment and prayed to enlarge him on bail.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
support of his arguments relied upon the judgment reported in
2003 CRL. L. J. 736 in the case of JEET RAMA AND ETC. vs
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH wherein it is held that mere
gravity of offence and the severity of punishment is no ground
for rejection of bail and no material on record to show that in the
event of bail, the accused are likely to tamper with the
prosecution evidence. The counsel also replied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 in the
case of SANJAY CHANDRA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION and in this judgment, the Apex Court held
that the gravity of alleged offence and severity of punishment
prescribed in law ought to be taken into consideration
simultaneously and gravity alone cannot be decisive ground to
deny bail. The counsel relied upon the judgment reported in
AIR 1978 SC 429 in the case of GUDIKANTI NARASIMULU
vs PUBLIC PROSECUTOR wherein the Apex Court held that bail
is a rule, jail is an exception. The counsel also relied upon the
judgment reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 in the case of
DATARAM SINGH vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
ANOTHER wherein an observation made with regard to even if
grant or refusal of bail is entirely upon discretion of Judge, it
must be exercised in a judicious manner and in a humane way
as such remanding hampers dignity of accused howsoever poor
he might be and ultimately presumption of innocence. The
counsel also relied upon the unreported order dated 25.06.2021
in Crl.P.No.101121/2021 and order dated 01.07.2021 in
Crl.P.No.101116/2021 and order dated 17.07.2021 in
Crl.P.No.101236/2021 passed by this Court taking note of age of
the accused and also taken note of the fact that the accused is a
student and if he detained in jail, it will affect his educational
carrier. The counsel also relied upon the order dated 02.07.2021
in Crl.P.No.101151/2021 and order dated 27.07.2021 in
Crl.P.No.101319/2021 passed by this Court wherein observed
that investigating agency has already collected the thumb
impression of the person who attended the physical test and
thumb impression of the petitioner-accused No.1 and when the
documents are already been collected and the petitioner has
undertaken to cooperate with the police and the investigation
and ready to abide by the conditions, he may be enlarged on bail
and he cannot be detained in custody.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Crl.P.No.5396/2022 would vehemently contend that this
petitioner is a PSI who is in service working at Byadarahalli
police station and he is an innocent person and there is an
apprehension of arrest and likelihood of implicating him as an
accused and the offence are not punishable with death or life
imprisonment and the same is triable by Magistrate and this
petitioner is no way concerned and not involved in such acts and
the police have issued the notice for appearance and they are
visiting the place of his residence and the petitioner had received
a message from mobile No.9743954489 which is the mobile
number of one Manjunath, Police Sub-Inspector attached with
CID police asking him to surrender to the police hence, there is
an apprehension of arrest and this petitioner has not indulged in
such acts hence, he may be enlarged on bail. The only reason
for arrest of this petitioner is that accused No.4 has given a
confession statement before the investigating agency stating
that this petitioner had helped him in the process of selection
and this petitioner had collected an amount of Rs.30 lakhs out of
Rs.40 lakhs.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in
Crl.P.No.5648/2022 submits that these petitioners have been
arraigned as accused Nos.16 and 19 and both are in judicial
custody and they have been falsely implicated in the case.
Petitioner No.1 is Master Degree graduate in Commerce
(M.Co,m) and the petitioner No.2 has completed Bachelor degree
in Engineering (B.E). The petitioners with their hard work in
study and by self efforts they faced examination and obtained
good marks and on merit, they got selected as successful
candidates in PSI examination. On reading the complaint itself
discloses that there is no offences committed by these
petitioners and major investigation is already completed and
further custodial trial is not required and the respondent police
have registered the false case against these petitioners and the
petitioners are entitled for bail and the counsel also vehemently
contend that the only allegation against these petitioners is that
their OMR sheets are not tallying with their carbon copies thus,
the case has been registered and took them in custody and
hence, the petitioners are entitled for bail.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Crl.P.No.5865/2022 would contend that this petitioner has been
arraigned as accused No.20 and the very contention of the
counsel for the petitioner is that he has achieved 22nd position in
the PSI examination out of his sheer hard work and dedicated
efforts and the prosecution has miserably failed to establish
prima facie case against the petitioner and the offences are also
not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment of life.
The petitioner himself handed over the documents such as
carbon copy of OMR and hall ticket to the Investigating Officer
and he is in custody from 30.04.2022 and no need of further
custodial investigation hence, he may be enlarged on bail. The
counsel also vehemently contend that this petitioner is only
breadwinner for the family and he lost his father in the year
2021 and he is ready to cooperate with the Investigating Officer
in the further investigation and Section 409 of IPC is not
applicable since no money is recovered from him. The counsel in
support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex
Court reported in (2017) 3 SCC 751 in the case of STATE OF
BIHAR AND ANOTHER vs AMIT KUMAR ALIAS BACHCHA
RAI wherein the Apex Court held that bail is a rule and jail is an
exception and no need of custody for long time and brought to
notice of the factual aspects of the reported judgment which is
referred in paragraph 3 and also brought to notice of this Court
paragraphs 9 and 10 wherein an observation is made that it is
not appropriate to compare the case of the other accused who
are on bail and offences are punishable with death or life
imprisonment hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Crl.P.No.5136/2022 vehemently contend that these petitioners
are the strangers to the applicants and the question of
conspiracy with the other accused persons does not arise and
there is no recovery from the petitioners and there is no
evidence to show that these petitioners are involved in the
alleged acts and they have been falsely implicated in the case
and these petitioners are in custody only based on the voluntary
statement of other accused persons and the question of
tampering does not arise and nothing is seized from these
petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is the resident of Channarayapatna
and member of Town Municipality and petitioner No.2 is the
business man and having son aged about 4 years who is
suffering from sensory disabilities/mental disabilities since birth
and he has to undergo physiotherapy at Bengaluru and his
mother want to bring him to Bengaluru for treatment from
Nagamangala, Mandya hence, they may be enlarged on bail and
no need of further custodial trial.
14. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State would vehemently opposes the bail
petitions filed by the respective petitioners contending that
unscrupulous persons have indulged in tampering of OMR sheets
and there was a conspiracy and still matter is under investigation
and at the crime stage, the petitioners are not entitled for the
bail. In respect of Crl.P.No.5136/2022, the learned SPP submits
that the petitioners are accused Nos.24 and 27 and arrested on
29.04.2022 and 09.05.2022 respectively and the counsel would
submit that on 15.05.2022, an amount was seized from accused
No.23 and the same is a joint recovery along with accused No.24
from the garden land of accused No.23 and Rs.30 lakhs was
seized and these petitioners are in touch with accused No.29 and
an amount is pertains to accused No.6 who is also been selected
in the selection list and accused No.23 is the relative of accused
No.6 and these two petitioners are indulged in such acts. The
learned SPP further submits that CDR report clearly discloses
that accused No.27 spoken to one Chandrashekar and there
were 270 out going calls and 88 incoming calls and CDR report
also discloses that accused No.24 made 533 outgoing calls and
received 603 incoming calls and there are 23 SMS and these
CDR reports clearly disclose that accused Nos.6, 23, 24 and 27
were in touch with each other. Accused No.6 also manipulated
the paper and panchanama was also drawn for recovery of
amount from accused Nos.23 and 24 and the same is a joint
recovery.
15. The Learned SPP for the State in respect of
Crl.P.No.5198/2022 would submit that accused No.4 is the
candidate and his OMR sheet is manipulated and he is also a
beneficiary in the alleged crime and he has also a contributor for
massive scandal and CDR clearly discloses that he has
participated in the said crime and he has marked only 30
questions and the same is stated in his voluntary statement and
he was in touch with accused Nos.1, 7, 9, 17 and 18 and he has
paid an amount of Rs.85 lakhs to other accused person who is
seeking for anticipatory bail i.e., Naveen Prasad, PSI. Hence,
there is a sufficient material against this petitioner also.
16. The learned SPP in respect of Crl.P.No.5396/2022
vehemently contend that the voluntary statement of accused
No.4 is clear that he has paid an amount of Rs.85 lakhs and this
petitioner is seeking for anticipatory bail and he is working in
Byadarahalli police station and the counsel for the State submits
that one more case is registered against him in Cr.No.118/2022
and he worked as a middlemen and he demanded an amount of
Rs.30 lakhs and taken a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and offence
punishable under Section 409 of IPC attracts against this
petitioner since he is a Government employee and punishment
for the said offence is for a period of 10 years and which may
extend up to life imprisonment and he being a PSI, indulged in
evading investigation hence, his presence is required.
17. The learned SPP appearing for the State in respect of
Crl.P.No.5648/2022 vehemently contend that these petitioners
are accused Nos.16 and 19 and they are also the candidates.
Accused No.16 has answered only 19 questions and CCTV
footage also discloses that he has not answered entire questions
and his paper is also tampered and FSL report also discloses the
tampering of OMR sheets and he has been in touch with accused
No.34 who is also a PIS and this petitioner given an amount of
Rs.30 lakhs and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.10 lakh
after the selection to accused No.34. The other accused No.19 is
also a candidate and he revealed the name of accused No.32 and
this petitioner also answered only 20 questions and he had also
indulged in tampering of OMR sheet and FSL report also clearly
discloses that the same has been tampered and CCTV footage
also recovered and he has paid an amount of Rs.32 lakhs and
agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.15 lakhs after the
selection and voluntary statements of accused Nos.16 and 19
are very clear that they also indulged in such acts.
18. The learned SPP appearing for the State in respect of
Crl.P.No.5865/2022 vehemently contend that accused No.20
who is also a candidate and his OMR sheet also manipulated and
FSL report discloses that the same is tampered and he has
answered only 16 questions and remaining questions are
tampered and this petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.15 lakhs
and he has been in touch with accused Nos.29 and 33 who is the
RPI Inspector and CDR discloses that all of them are in touch
with each other and prayed to dismiss all the bail petitions.
19. In reply to the arguments of the learned SPP, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently
contend that they are in custody and in statement of objections
in respect of Crl.P.No.5136/2022, they have stated that recovery
is made at the instance of accused No.23 and accused No.24
was not present and they are neither the candidates nor the
beneficiaries hence, they may be enlarged on bail. The counsel
appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5396/2022 would submit
that page Nos.38 and 39 is very clear that Investigating Officer
took the signature on the blank paper and the same has been
created and no evidence is collected and in respect of
Crl.P.No.5685/2022, there is no recovery from accused No.20
and there is no voluntary statement and not attract Section 420
of IPC and voluntary statements are created and CDR cannot be
relied upon when no details are given hence, prayed this Court
to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
20. Having heard the respective learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State and so also the grounds urged in the bail petition and the
material available on record, the points that would arise for
consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the petitioners in
Crl.P.Nos.5136/2022, 5198/2022, 5648/2022
and 5865/2022 have made out a ground to
invoke Section 439 of Cr.P.C to enlarge them
on bail?
(ii) Whether the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5396/2022
has made out a ground to invoke Section 438
of Cr.P.C. to grant the relief of anticipatory
bail?
(iii) What order?
Point No.(i)
21. Having taken note of the material available on
record, these petitioners are in custody from the date of their
arrest. In all the four petitions filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., the petitioners are the candidates in the PSI
examination, except the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5136/2022, who
are the middlemen according to the prosecution. The
petitioners, who are the candidates also participated in the
examination and they are also successful in the examination.
The main allegation against them is that, they had indulged in
malpractice and they were in touch with the persons, who are in
helm of affairs in the selection process. The material placed
before the Court in respect of the petitioners, who are the
candidates in the PSI examination, it is seen that their papers
are manipulated. It is the main contention of the prosecution
also that, though the candidates answered only minimum
number of questions, the RFSL report placed before the Court
discloses that the names of these petitioners are also found
wherein, their OMR sheets have been manipulated. Now, the
matter is under crime stage and the investigation is not yet
completed and no doubt, they are in custody from the date of
their arrest, when the prima facie material discloses that they
are the candidates, whose OMR sheets are manipulated and in
the complaint itself, their names are also found that prima facie
material is against them. When such being the case and the
material discloses that the OMR sheets are tampered and the
same is not found in the carbon sheets which they have secured
during the course of the investigation, there is a prima facie case
against the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled
for bail during the crime stage, since it is a big scam and these
petitioners have indulged in the process of selection of PSI which
is nothing but an act of terror to the society and the real victims
are those, who have appeared in the examination and suffered
injustice at the hands of persons, who have indulged in
manipulation of OMR sheets and also tampering the same which
were kept in the Secret Guard Room, wherein the OMR sheets
were kept in the custody of persons, who are in helm of affairs of
the selection process. The same is an impact on the society at
large and the people will loose faith in the selection process and
what services the people can expect from the candidates, who
have indulged in the manipulation of question papers in the
selection process. It is nothing but the fence eating the gross.
22. The other petitioners are the petitioners in
Crl.P.No.5136/2022. No doubt, though they claim that they are
strangers and have not indulged in any such act and they have
been booked for having worked as middlemen, it has to be noted
that accused No.24 was apprehended on 29.04.2022 and
accused No.27 was apprehended on 09.05.2022. No doubt, in
the objection statement, the State has stated that recovery is
made at the instance of accused No.23 for an amount of Rs.30
lakhs, it is the case of the prosecution that an amount of Rs.30
lakhs was collected from accused No.6, who is also a candidate
and his name is also found in the selection list.
23. It is also important to note that while seizing the
amount, the police have taken the accused No.24 along with
accused No.23 and there was a joint recovery, that too, in the
garden land of accused No.23. Apart from that, it is the case of
the prosecution that these petitioners were in touch with accused
Nos.27, 29 and so also accused No.6, who is also a successful
candidate in the selection process, who was also in touch with
accused No.23 and through these petitioners, the amount has
been paid to accused No.23. The prosecution also mainly relies
upon the CDR details with regard to incoming and outgoing calls
to prove that all of them were in touch with each other. No
doubt, only CDR details are found and not placed any details of
conversation between them, the same requires time to
investigate the same. When such being the material on record
and an allegation of intermeddling in the process of selection of
candidate for PSI post has been alleged against these petitioners
and the material prima facie discloses recovery of an amount of
Rs.30 lakhs through accused Nos.23 and 24, however, there is
no recovery at the instance of accused No.27 and the call details
are collected with regard to the persons, who were in touch in
the selection process, particularly, accused Nos.27 and 29, it is
not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C.
24. The other contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the accused, who have been produced before
the Court particularly, accused Nos.2 to 6, 14 to 16 and 19 to 21
have made the statement before the Magistrate that
Investigating Agency has taken their signatures on the blank
papers without giving any information. The said contention
cannot be accepted at this juncture and whether their signatures
are taken on the blank papers or not is a matter of proof and the
investigation is not yet completed. The other contention is that
the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment and
bail is a rule and jail is an exception and the same cannot be
accepted for the reason that in a case of murder, the life of a
person and his family are affected but, in a case of crime like
this, whole society will be affected and it will be an impact on the
society and the people will loose faith in the very system which
creates anarchy in the society. Hence, it is not a fit case to
exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in favour of
these petitioners during the crime stage. Accordingly, I answer
point No.(i) as 'negative'.
Point No.(ii)
25. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner in
Crl.P.No.5396/2022 is working as Police Sub-Inspector, who is in
service had indulged in collecting an amount of Rs.30 lakhs out
of the amount of Rs.40 lakhs. The accused No.4, who is the
successful candidate, in his confession statement made the
statement that he made the payment to this petitioner, who is
working as Police Sub-Inspector, Byadarahalli Police Station and
the petitioners belong to Magadi Taluk. No doubt, based on the
voluntary statement, the petitioner claims that there is an
apprehension of arrest and police have also given notice and
visiting the house of the petitioner, it has to be noted that the
accused No.4, who is also a successful candidate in the PSI
examination made a specific statement that he gave the money
to this petitioner to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs out of Rs.40 lakhs
and inspite of the fact that notice was given to him, though he is
in service, he did not appear before the Investigating Officer and
he has absconded and to unearth the truth for having collected
the amount from the selected candidate i.e., accused No.4, who
had revealed the payment of amount, the matter has to be
probed. No doubt, only based on the voluntary statement, the
Court cannot detain him in custody, here is a case where notice
was given to him and inspite of notice, he did not appear and he
being the Police Sub-Inspector and working in the very same
department failed to appear before the Investigating Officer. In
order to recover the amount from the petitioner, since the very
successful candidate i.e., accused No.4 disclose that he made
the payment to this petitioner to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs and
when serious allegation is made, it is nothing but an instance of
fence eating the gross and the very society is affected by the
persons, who are in helm of affairs, who had indulged in
tampering the OMR sheets which are seized and sent to RFSL
and the RFSL report is also placed before the Court, wherein,
tampering of the OMR sheets of some of the candidates,
including the OMR sheet of accused No.4 is proved. When such
being the case, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner to
enlarge him on bail and the very presence of the petitioner is
required to investigate the matter. Accordingly, I answer point
No.(ii) also as 'negative'.
Point No.(iii)
26. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Crl.P.Nos.5136/2022, 5198/2022, 5648/2022
and 5865/2022 filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. and so also the Crl.P.No.5396/2022
filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are
rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN/ST
