AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Jagannathan, J.—The Petitioner seeks bail u/s 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure following the trial court rejecting his prayer for bail and the Petitioner is accused of having committed the offence punishable u/s 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (''P.C. Act for short) and Section 201 of the IPC.
The complaint lodged by one Ramanjanappa on 28.9.10 before the Lokayukta police inspector having led to the case being registered as aforesaid and the gist of the complaint allegations is that, on 26.9.2010 the Petitioner herein contacted the complainant on his mobile phone and thereafter the complainant met the Petitioner at the latter''s residence and the Petitioner is said to have sought the help of the complainant to influence the Lokayuktha police who were inquiring into KIADB land scam and the Petitioner also sought the help from the complainant in the form of holding a Dharana in front of the house of the Chief Minister and for all these acts on the part of the complainant, Petitioner would reward him sufficiently. The complainant having recorded the conversation that took place between him and the Petitioner, thereafter approached the Lokayuktha police and filed his complaint which ultimately led to the case being registered, against the Petitioner in Cr. No. 48/10 by the Lokayuktha police.
Submission of Sri. C.V. Nagesh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that, a plain reading of the complaint allegations will not make out the necessary ingredients of Section 8 or Section 9 of the P.C. Act and therefore Section 10 of the said Act being attracted, will not arise. In this regard learned Counsel took me through the entire contents of the complaint to argue that nowhere in the complaint, has it been averred by the complainant that, he accepted or agreed to accept gratification from the Petitioner as a motive for the act to be carried out by the complainant. It is therefore argued that the Petitioner be released on bail.
Further the submission made is that the offence alleged u/s 10 of the P.C. Act is punishable with not less than six months of imprisonment which may also extend to five years and also liable to be lined. As such, referring to the punishment prescribed for the alleged offence, it is submitted that the Petitioner be released on bail.
On the other hand, Smt. T.M. Gayathri, learned Counsel appearing for the Lokayukta police argued that the complaint allegations make out a case against the Petitioner not only u/s 10 of the P.C. Act, but also Section 201 of the IPC and she also argued that Section 116 of the IPC also gets attracted to the instant case. Further, it was also submitted by her that the Petitioner is an influential person and if he is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence. Yet, another submission put forward is that the KIADB land scam involves several persons and therefore, not withstanding the punishment prescribed for the alleged offence, the petition be rejected.
Having heard both sides as above and after going through the complaint allegations, I do find sufficient force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that necessary ingredients of Section 8 or Section 9 are not to be found in the complaint and secondly, the offence alleged u/s 10 of the P.C. Act being punishable with imprisonment for not less than six months, but it may extend to five years and fine, these factors therefore inclines me to grant bail to the Petitioner. Since learned Counsel appearing for the Lokayuktha also raised apprehension with regard to tampering of evidence, the Petitioner can be imposed conditions to take care of this aspect of the matter.
In the result, bail petition is allowed and the Petitioner be released on bail subject to following conditions:
The Petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees one lakh) with two sureties for the likesum, out of whom, one shall be a solvent surety, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner and he shall not hamper the investigation directly or indirectly.
The Petitioner shall not give threat to the complainant in any manner.
The Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police station on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m., without fail.
The Petitioner, if he is in possession of a passport, shall surrender the same to the jurisdictional police station
The Petitioner shall not leave the country.
If any of the conditions are violated, the Lokayukta police is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.