NAGARAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the petition under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking for regular bail in Crime No.18/2024 of Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Urban, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 7(a) and 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and amended Act, pending on the file of the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.

(2.) The allegations of the prosecution disclose that the complainant is running a Private Gas Agency and ACP of Peenya Sub-Division summoned him on the ground that he is doing business of supplying gas in his area illegally. When the first informant approached him, the ACP is said to have demanded Rs.2.00 lakhs in order to do such a business within his jurisdiction. When he came out of the office of the ACP along with the petitioner/accused No.1, who is the driver of the ACP and accused No.2, who is the Head Constable said to have demanded Rs.10,000.00 and Rs.25,000.00 respectively towards their share independently. A regular call was being made by both the accused to the first informant and hence he has lodged a complaint against the petitioner/accused No.1 and other accused on 26/3/2024. A trap was laid down and Investigating Officer has drawn a entrustment Mahazar and then they proceeded to trap. It is alleged that the petitioner/accused No.1 was trapped while receiving Rs.50,000.00 from the first informant and same was recorded in a Trap Mahazar. Then the statement of the petitioner/accused No.1 was said to have been recorded, wherein he asserted that as per instructions of accused No.2, he called the first informant and as per the instructions of accused No.2, he demanded the amount, but the accused No.2 is alleged to have been disputed the claim. However, the tainted amount was said to have been recovered and the hand wash of the petitioner was taken, which has shown positive to Phenolphthalein test. The Trap Mahazar was also drawn and petitioner/accused No.1 was arrested and produced before Special Judge. He was remanded to the custody.

(3.) Then he has approached the learned Special Judge seeking regular bail and bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court.