Sri. K. R Basavaraju vs State By Lokayukta Police Station
2024 Latest Caselaw 5816 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. K. R Basavaraju vs State By Lokayukta Police Station on 27 February, 2024

Author: Rajendra Badamikar

Bench: Rajendra Badamikar

                                            -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:8150
                                                    CRL.P No. 1691 of 2024




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                          BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1691 OF 2024
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI. K. R BASAVARAJU,
                   S/OLATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA,
                   AGED 53 YEARS,
                   DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC
                   CHIKMAGALURU,
                   PERMANENT RESIDENT AT
                   R/AT 2ND CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, KYATASANDRA,
                   TUMKURU TOWN - 577 101.
                                                             ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. RAVI .B. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR
                        MS. VIJETHA .R. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION,
                   CHIKAMAGALURU - 577 101,
                   SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed   (SERVED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
by SOWMYA D        LOKAYUKTA ATTACHED TO THIS HONBLE COURT)
Location: High                                                ...RESPONDENT
Court of           (BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, SPL.PP FOR LOKAYUKTHA,
Karnataka              V/O DTD:20.02.2024)

                        THE CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
                   ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.3/2024
                   REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT LOK AYUKTA POLICE AT
                   CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7(a) OF P.C ACT
                   PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
                   JUDGE, AND SPL.JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU.
                              -2-
                                               NC: 2024:KHC:8150
                                          CRL.P No. 1691 of 2024




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


                            ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on bail in

CR No.3/2024 registered by Lokayukta Police at

Chikkamagaluru District, for the offence punishable under

Section 7(a) of P.C. Act pending on the file of the Principal

District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at

Chikkamagluru.

2. The allegations of the prosecution disclose that,

the petitioner/Accused No.1 is working as Divisional

Commissioner in KSRTC Bus Depot at Chikkamagaluru,

while the complainant was the driver. It is alleged that,

accused No.2 was the driver of accused No.1. According to

the prosecution, the complainant was suspended from the

service on the allegation of transporting illegal alcohol in

the bus and Departmental Enquiry was pending against

him. It is further alleged that, initially he was suspended

and subsequently, his suspension was revoked and he was

NC: 2024:KHC:8150

transferred to Mudigere. Then the complainant approached

the petitioner herein seeking for transfer either to Kaduru

or Chikkamagaluru on the ground that his native was at

Devanuru and it would be difficult for him to attend the

duty on time from Mudigere. It is further allegation of the

prosecution that the accused has demanded Rs.10,000/-

for his transfer and being aggrieved by this aspect, the

complainant has lodged a complaint. Thereafter, when the

trap was laid down and when the amount was offered,

accused No.1 is said to have directed him to pay the

amount to accused No.2 and accused No.2 has received

the tainted amount from the complainant. Then the trap

was held and tainted amount was recovered from the

custody of accused No.2. A trap mahazar was also drawn

and then statement of accused No.2 was recorded

immediately after the trap. Accused No.2 has asserted

that he has received the amount as per the instruction of

accused No.1 and hence, accused No.1 was arrested and

remanded to custody. It is further alleged that accused

No.1 has also given a statement that, he did not demand

NC: 2024:KHC:8150

any amount and payment was made voluntarily by the

complainant.

3. The petitioner/Accused No.1 was produced

before the Special Judge and he was remanded to judicial

custody. He filed a petition seeking for regular bail

petition before the special judge and his bail petition came

to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public

Prosecutor appearing for Lokayuktha/respondent. Perused

the records.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that, no amount was recovered from the

custody of the petitioner/Accused No.1 and the alleged

amount was recovered from the custody of accused No.2.

He would also contend that the complainant himself was

suspended and criminal prosecution/proceedings as well as

departmental enquiry was initiated and the entire case is

based on the alleged conversation recorded by the

NC: 2024:KHC:8150

complainant said to have been taken place between the

petitioner and complainant. But, it does not disclose

specific allegations regarding demand and acceptance of

bribe. He would contend that the major portion of the

investigation is concluded and there is no question of

tampering the prosecution witnesses, as all are official

witnesses and only FSL report is required to be received.

Hence, he would contend that the presence of the

petitioner is no more required by the investigating officer

and as such he would seek for enlarging him on regular

bail.

6. Per contra, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor appearing for Lokayuktha/respondent would

contend that the amount was recovered from the custody

of accused No.2 at the instance of accused No.1 and the

conversation which was recorded discloses that there was

a demand and there is prima-facie material evidence as

against the petitioner. He would also assert that the

petitioner is holding high post and in case he is enlarged

NC: 2024:KHC:8150

on bail there is a possibility of he tampering the

prosecution witnesses. Hence, he would seek for rejection

of the bail petition.

7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is an admitted fact that the complainant was

working as KSRTC bus driver in Chikkamagaluru Depot,

where the petitioner was the Divisional Controller. Further,

it is an undisputed fact that accused No.2 was working as

driver of the official vehicle of the present petitioner. The

allegations further disclose that the complainant was

involved in transport of illicit liquor in his bus and he was

initially suspended and later on his suspension was

revoked and he was transferred to Mudigere.

8. According to the prosecution, the complainant

requested the petitioner/accused to transfer him either to

Kadur or Chikkamagaluru as his family was staying in

Devanuru which is nearer to said places and easy

accessible to his place and he could attend the duty in

NC: 2024:KHC:8150

time and it is alleged that in this regard, there was a

demand of illegal gratification.

9. The allegation of the prosecution discloses

that the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from

the custody of accused No.2, who is not the petitioner

before the Court. The prosecution is placing reliance on his

statement wherein it is asserted that he received the

amount at the instance of the present petitioner. The

prosecution is completely relying on the recorded

conversation between complainant and petitioner

regarding demand and acceptance. But, on perusal of the

said conversation there is no specific assertion that the

amount should be paid to accused No.2, who is the

petitioner's driver. The statement given by accused No.2

discloses that the said conversation has taken place in the

presence of the complainant. But, interestingly the said

conversation is found to be missing.

10. However, it is a fact that tainted amount was

recovered from the custody of accused No.2. Further, the

NC: 2024:KHC:8150

trap mahazar was drawn and the mahazar witnesses are

not subordinate to the present petitioner and they are the

independent Government employees. Nothing is recovered

from the custody of the present petitioner who is arrayed

as accused No.1. The records disclose that the relevant

documents were also recovered by the Investigating

Officer and further the statement of all the material

witnesses have been recorded. Now, the prosecution is

required to obtain sanction from the competent authority

on the basis of FSL report which is yet to be received.

Hence, prima-facie it is evident that major portion of the

investigation is concluded and admittedly, no amount was

recovered from the custody of the petitioner so as to draw

presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act. The learned

counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the

following citations:

1. The decision reported in (2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 791 in the case of P.Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement.

NC: 2024:KHC:8150

2. The judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.10279/2022 a/w 10355/2022 in the case of Sri. Purandara Hegde V/s The State Through the Inspctor of Police, Lokayukta Police Station, Mangalore.

3. The judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.1634/2022 in the case of Sri. Rachappaji K.S. V/s The State of Karnataka.

4. The judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.1808/2022 in the case of Sri. R.Sundaresh Naik V/s The State of Karnataka.

11. The principle cited in the case of

P.Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement reported

in (2020) 13 SCC 791 is not directly applicable to the case

on hand, as this is not a case of economic offence.

However, the principles cited in the above other citations

are directly applicable, as major portion of the

investigation is concluded.

12. Considering these facts and circumstances, I do

not find any impediment for admitting the

petitioner/accused on bail. The other apprehensions

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:8150

raised by learned Special Public Prosecutor can be meted

by imposing certain conditions. Question of tampering the

prosecution witnesses does not arise at all, as all the

witnesses are public servants. Hence, the petition needs

to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

(I) Petition is allowed.

(II) The petitioner/accused is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.3/2024 of Lokayuktha Police, Chikkamagaluru for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of P.C Act, which is pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Chikkamagaluru, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions that:

             (i)    He shall not indulge in any of the
                    criminal activities.

(ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:8150

(iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without prior permission.

(iv) He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.

(v) He shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter.

(vi) He shall mark his attendance before Investigating Officer/SHO on every first and third Saturday of the month between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the final report is submitted.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MS