J.MANJUNATH, IAS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by accused No.3 under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in Crime No.44/2022 registered by ACB Police, Bangalore for the offence punishable under Sec. 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act').

(2.) Heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner's counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-ACB.

(3.) The case of prosecution is that on the complaint of one Azam Pasha, the respondent-ACB police registered a case on 20/5/2022 for the aforesaid offence against one Mahesh and another. It is alleged in the complaint that in the year 2014, the complainant had purchased a land measuring 38 guntas in Sy. No.190/5 situated at Koodlu village, Anekal Taluk from one Nagesh and he has got mutated his name in the mutation register as well as in the RTC. Subsequently, in the year 2018 one Venkataswamy Reddy filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in RA (3)/2018-19 challenging entering the name of the complainant in the mutation register and the same was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner on 24/12/2020. Subsequently, the said Venkataswamy Reddy filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner in RP(16)/20-21 on 15/1/2021. After hearing the arguments, the case was reserved for passing orders on 30/3/2022. Subsequently, on 18/5/2022 at 5.00 p.m., the complainant approached the present petitioner who is the Deputy Commissioner before whom the revision is pending. At 5.30 p.m., the petitioner came out from his chamber and the complainant met him. The petitioner identified the complainant and while both of them were going and accused No.1 Mahesh also accompanied the petitioner and got down to the ground floor and the petitioner said to be boarded his car stating that 'see you tomorrow'. Subsequently, accused No.1, who is the Deputy Tahsildar and said to be working under the petitioner as personal Assistant, took the complainant to his chambers and both of them sat together and accused No.1 shown the file to the complainant and questioned the complainant of what he will do and how much amount the complainant will pay. Accused No.1 also pressurised the complainant to pay the bribe amount for passing the order. Though the complainant was justified that he has purchased the property and all the documents are in his favour, however, accused No.1 said to be holding a white paper and asked for Rs.15.00 lakhs for passing favourable orders. When the complainant was unable to pay such amount, he bargained upto Rs.8.00 lakhs. Finally, the complainant agreed to pay Rs.3.00 lakhs. But, subsequently, the accused made it as Rs.5.00 lakhs and agreed to receive Rs.5.00 lakhs for passing favourable order and also informed about intimating the officer. Since the complainant was not willing to pay bribe, he recorded the audio and video from his mobile phone and produced before the police and accordingly, the ACB police registered a case and set up a trap. On 21/5/2022, the complainant took Rs.5.00 lakhs in a cover and went to the office of accused No.1 and when he was waiting in front of the chambers of Deputy Commissioner, accused No.1 Mahesh went to the Deputy Commissioner chamber at 2.00 p.m. and one person wearing green shirt (i.e. accused No.2) came near the complainant and requested the complainant to pay the money. Accordingly, the complainant given the money cover to Accused No.2 who is said to be sent by accused No.1. The complainant intimated the police and immediately, they apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 and seized tainted cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs under panchanama and they were remanded to judicial custody. Accused No.2 said to be a private person and is said to be granted bail by the Special Judge and accused No.1 Mahesh was also released on the statutory bail as the police failed to file charge sheet within sixty days. Previously, the bail application of accused No.1 came to be rejected by the Special Court and he approached the High Court for granting regular bail. During the pendency of the bail petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court said to be questioned the ACB for not taking any action against the Deputy Commissioner and it is alleged that thereafter, the ACB arrested the Deputy Commissioner, the present petitioner, on 4/7/2022 and he was remanded to judicial custody. His bail petition came to be rejected by the Special Court and hence, he is before this Court.