Sri. Prashanth Kumar M V vs State By Karnataka Lokyukta ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2326 Kant

                            1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3271 OF 2023

BETWEEN

SRI. PRASHANTH KUMAR M V
S/O K. MADAL VIRUPAKSHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO. 301, KMV MANSION
A.E.C.S.LAYOUT, SANJAYANAGAR
BANGLAORE - 560 094                         ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHANKAR P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKYUKTHA POLICE
BENGALURU CITY POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
(REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
FOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                        ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.B. PATIL, SPECIAL COUNSEL)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.13/2023 OF
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, BENGALURU CITY DIVISION,
BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 7(a)(b), 7(A), 8, 9, 10 OF P.C ACT ON THE FILE OF
THE HONBLE 23rd ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU.
                                  2


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.04.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in

Crime No.13/2023 registered by Lokayuktha Police,

Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a)

& (b), 7(A), 8, 9 and 10 of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (for short 'P.C. Act'), pending on the file of 23rd

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri. B.B.Patil, learned Special counsel for the

respondent-Lokayuktha.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-

complainant one Shreyas Kashyap filed a complaint to the

Lokayuktha Police on 02.03.2023 alleging that the accused

No.1 is said to be the Chairman of the Karnataka State

Soaps and Detergent Limited (hereinafter referred to as

'KSDL') and MLA and demanded Rs.81.00 lakhs for the

purpose of placing the order, smooth payment and

accepting the tender for procuring the raw material to the

KSDL. When the complainant met accused No.1 who is the

sitting MLA and chairman of KSDL, said to be demanded

Rs.81.00 lakhs and asked to contact this petitioner-

accused No.2 and accordingly, the complainant met this

petitioner and this petitioner also demanded bribe on

28.02.2023 and the complainant is not interested in paying

the bribe and hence, filed complaint to the Police. A trap

was set up and an amount of Rs.40.00 lakhs was sent

through the complainant on 02.03.2023 when it was

handing over to accused No.2, the Lokayuktha Police

trapped him and seized Rs.40.00 lakhs. The Lokayuktha

Police also seized another Rs.90.00 lakhs from two other

persons and thereafter, they said to be raided the house of

accused No.1 and seized Rs.6.10 crores from the bed room

of accused No.1 and the petitioner was arrested, he was

produced before the Special Court and remanded to the

judicial custody. Subsequently, the Police said to be took

the petitioner for 10 days custody, thereafter, he was

remanded back to the judicial custody. His bail petition

came to be rejected by the Trial Court on 10.04.2023 in

Crl.Misc.Nos.2176/2023 and 2524/2023. Hence the

petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that the petitioner is related to accused No.1 as

this petitioner is the son of accused No.1. He is not related

to the work pending with the accused No.1. The petitioner

is working in BWSSB and he has not demanded and

accepted any bribe from the complainant. The complainant

came to the office and kept the bag on the table which was

taken by accused No.3 and this petitioner is not aware

about the said amount kept by the complainant. He would

further contended that the investigation is almost

completed except filing the final report and for want of FSL

report, they have kept the same pending. He is in custody

for almost 48 days. The Police are required to file charge-

sheet within 10 days. The alleged offence under Section

7(a) does not attract against this petitioner as no work is

pending with him and he has not received any bribe for

himself and utmost, the offence under Section 8 may

attract which is punishable for maximum 7 years and

there is minimum punishment prescribed.

5. The learned counsel also contended that the

amount seized from the house for Rs.6.10 crores belong to

the company run by his brothers which were accounted by

the company by producing the Income Tax returns and a

relative also examined who has given a statement that the

money belongs to them.

6. The learned counsel also contended the main

accused is the accused No.1 and all other accused were

granted bail by the Sessions Judge except this petitioner.

He is a KAS Officer working in BWSSB. He is ready to

abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

Hence, prayed for granting bail.

7. Per contra, learned respondent counsel

objected the petition by filing written objections

contending that there is prima facie case made against the

petitioner for accepting the bribe on behalf of his father-

accused No.1. The panchanama and pre trap panchanama

reveals the demand and acceptance by him. The statement

of M.D. of KSDL one Mahesh under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

clearly reveals that the interference of this petitioner in the

KSDL matter. It is clearly seen about the demand and

acceptance. The Investigating Officer examined 23

witnesses. The petitioner has not cooperated with the

Investigating Officer. He will tamper and destroy the

evidence and he will threat the prosecution witness. The

offence is economic offence. Hence, prayed for rejecting

the bail petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply

has stated that now his father is not an MLA, this

petitioner cannot go inside the KSDL Office and question of

tampering the witnesses does not arise. Except filing the

charge-sheet, nothing is remained and in support of his

arguments, the learned counsel has relied upon the

various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another reported

in 2014 8 SCC 273.

9. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of

the records, which reveals, the complainant who is a

successful company had obtained the tender from the

KSDL for supply of raw materials to the KSDL and for

smooth supply of the raw materials and payment, he has

approached accused No.1 and for that accused No.1 being

MLA and Chairman of KSDL, said to be demanded Rs.80.00

lakhs as bribe and asked the complainant to approach

accused No.2-present petitioner. Accordingly, the

complainant approached this petitioner through his mobile

phone, later, while handing over the amount of Rs.40.00

lakhs, this petitioner was caught red handed and he has

been arrested by the Lokayuktha Police. Subsequently,

the Police also seized Rs.90.00 lakhs from the other

accused persons who also brought some amount to the

house of the petitioner and later, the Police raided the

house of accused No.1 and seized Rs.6.10 crores from the

bed room of accused No.1. Thereafter, all the accused

were produced before the Court and remanded to the

judicial custody. Accused No.1 has been granted interim

anticipatory bail by this Court and subsequently, the same

was cancelled and later, accused No.1 was arrested and he

was remanded to the judicial custody. Admittedly, accused

No.1 has been granted regular bail by the same Trial Court

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on 15.04.2023. The Trial

Court also granted bail to the co-accused No.3 on

10.04.2023. The other accused also granted bail by the

very same Special Court and now all the accused persons

were granted bail by the Special Court except this

petitioner.

10. This petitioner is in custody from 02.03.2023

for almost 49 days. As per the statement of objection and

submission of respondent counsel, most of the

investigation is completed except receiving the FSL report

and filing the charge-sheet nothing is pending. The

statement of the 23 witnesses have already been recorded

including the statement of the MD of KSDL under Section

164 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court while granting bail to

accused No.1 had relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the cases of Moti Ram and others vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47;

Bhagirathsinh S/o. Mahipat Singh Judeja vs. State of

Gujarat reported in (1984) 1 SCC 284; Joginder

Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994)

4 SCC 260. All the said judgments are also relied by the

petitioner counsel before this Court for granting bail to the

present petitioner. In all the above said judgments,

including the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs.

State stated supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

considered the provisions of bail and has held that granting

bail is rule and rejection is exception and the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs.

CBI reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 directed the

Government of India to introduce a separate enactment of

bail and also directed the Investigation Agencies or duty

bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41A

of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the

matter in detail and has granted bail to the accused person

who are languishing in jail.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, though there is a case against the petitioner for

accepting the bribe amount on behalf of accused No.1

which may attract Section 8 of the P.C.Act which is

punishable for maximum 7 years and not for death or

imprisonment for life. He is in custody for almost 50 days.

The Courts will be going to close for Summer Vacation. The

Investigating Officer may file report within a span of one

week or otherwise, if the Investigating Officer failed to file

the charge-sheet, the petitioner may get statutory bail.

Therefore, keeping the petitioner in custody will not serve

any purpose except detaining in jail.

12. The Police already took him for 10 days

custody and produced back to the Court and they have not

sought any further custody. Therefore, the petitioner may

not require for any further investigation for the Police.

When all the other accused persons are granted bail by the

Trial Court, this petitioner is also entitled for the bail on

the ground of parity. Therefore, by imposing certain

stringent conditions, if bail is granted to the petitioner, no

prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution.

13. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed.

The Trial Court is directed to release the petitioner-

accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.13/2023 registered by

Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru for the offences punishable

under Sections 7(a) & (b), 7(A), 8, 9 and 10 of Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988, subject to the following

conditions:

(i) Petitioner-accused No.2 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 Trial Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

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

(iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the Court.

(v) Petitioner shall be available for the purpose of any further investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer.

(vi) Petitioner shall surrender the passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GBB