B.Y. VIJAYENDRA, S/O. B.S. YEDDYURAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS these two petitions filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. relate to one and the same case registered in Special C.C.No. 173/12 on the file of XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this Court common order. A private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. came to be filed in PCR No. 18/11 by complainant Y.S.V. Datta, a sitting member of Legislative Council against B.S. Yediyurappa, former Chief Minister of the State alleging several offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the P.C. Act"). The complaint was presented before the learned Special Judge constituted for trying the offences under the P.C. Act. The learned Special Judge referred the said complaint to the Lokayuktha Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. Pursuant to the said reference, the Lokayuktha Police registered the case in Crime No. 33/11. After investigation the Investigating Officer filed a B -summary report. The learned Special Judge after considering the B -summary Report found that it was necessary to direct the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation not only against the persons arraigned as accused in the complaint but also against few other companies. In that view of the matter, by order dated 26.5.2012, the learned Special Judge rejected the B -Summary Report and directed the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation on the aspects mentioned in the order against the accused and also against M/s. Davalagiri Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Sahyadri Health Care and Diagnostic Pvt Ltd., and M/s. Murudeshwara Power Corporation Ltd. The Investigating Officer conducted further investigation and again filed B -Summary Report stating that there are no materials to connect the petitioners herein and also the person arraigned as accused in the complaint to the offences alleged. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge by order dated 4.9.2012 rejected the B -Summary Report filed by the Investigating Officer and proceeded to take cognizance of the offences against the person arraigned as accused in the original complaint as also against the aforesaid three companies represented by these petitioners and ordered issue of summons to all of them. Apprehending that upon their appearance before the Court, pursuant to issue of summons they are likely to be taken to custody, the petitioners have presented these petitions seeking relief of anticipatory bail.

(2.) SRI . B.A. Belliappa, learned standing counsel who was directed to take notice on behalf of respondent -Karnataka Lokayuktha, appeared before the court and submitted that the petition is misconceived and there is no basis for the apprehension of the petitioners since the Special Court has merely ordered summons and not a warrant.

(3.) SRI . Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel submitted that though the Special Court has ordered issue of summons only and not the warrant, the petitioners apprehend that they are likely to be remanded to judicial custody upon their appearance before the Court pursuant to the summons issued and that their apprehension is well founded. He also brought to the notice of this Court that this Court has granted relief of anticipatory bail to accused No.1 against whom similar allegations have been made, therefore, on the principles of parity, these petitioners are entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. He further contended that these petitioners had not been originally impleaded as accused in the complaint and no allegations had been made out as such there are no reasonable grounds to believe that these petitioners are guilty of any of the offences alleged.