B.R. MANJUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.16/2019 of Vijayapur ACB Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under sections 7(a), 7A, 13(1)(a) and (b) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'PC Act').

(2.) The complainant in the case is the Police Inspector of the Anti Corruption Bureau Police Station, Vijayapur, who has stated that based on the complaints and credible information received by their cell about the corrupt practice said to have been being practiced by the officials and the staff at the Regional Transport Office, Vijayapur, he kept a watch on the said office on 29.11.2019, 30.11.2019 and 02.12.2019. He also collected the information from the informants as well as from the public in a secret manner. Thus, he has lodged a complaint alleging that an action against them for the offences punishable under sections 7(a), 7A, 13(1)(a) and (b) of PC Act is required to be taken. Accordingly, a complaint was registered. Subsequent to the same, on 05.12.2019 a raid was said to have been conducted upon the Regional Transport Office, Vijayapur and on some of the shops in which the middlemen were said to have been acting in aid of the officials. According to the panchanama said to have been drawn in the process, it is shown that an undeclared cash amount of a sum of Rs.28,390/- was said to have been found in the place where the Senior Motor Cycle Inspector was sitting and several of the office stationaries were also said to have been seized from the possession of the middlemen or the alleged agents who were helping the officials of the RTO office for their corrupt practice. The panchanama also alleges that from the official staff and the middlemen a sum of Rs.1,89,230/- was seized.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his argument, submitted that admittedly there is no specific allegation against the present petitioner who is the Regional Transport Officer of the said office, either in the complaint or in the office search panchanama. Even according to the said panchanama, the present petitioner who is the RTO of the said office was not in his office at the time of the alleged raid. Learned counsel further submits that the said RTO was on leave on the said day. As such, he has no nexus with respect to the alleged seizure of the cash and other article. However, since he has got apprehension of his arrest, he has preferred this petition. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner being a Government official there is no chances of he absconding and he would make himself readily available for investigation as and when it is required.