M. CHIDANAND RAO AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent - police to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered in Crime No. 02/2015.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution's case as per the complaint averments are that on 03.09.2015 at about 5.00 p.m., one Raju Oran, permanent resident of Hajaribag Jharkhand filed a complaint against the Police Inspector and a constable, i.e., the present petitioners, for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is mentioned in the complaint that the complainant is the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. KA -22/ C -2154 and on 02.09.2015 at about 7.45 p.m. the complainant left BMM Factory by his truck loading 35 ton of sponge iron for delivery to Shivam Factory, Konde. At about 8.45 p.m., near T.B. Dam circle, a person in uniform along with a police jeep stopped the lorry of the complainant and asked for the documents, for which the said officer told that the goods in the lorry are over loaded and the complainant resisted for which the officer scolded him and demanded from him L 15,000/ - to release the lorry. Thereafter, the complainant called his owner by his mobile phone and gave the mobile phone to one person standing by the side of jeep to talk with his owner. The complainant does not have the knowledge of Kannada language and as such, he could not understand the conversation taken place between the standing person and the owner. In the meantime, a police officer standing on the spot slapped the complainant on his cheek and the complainant told that his owner is bringing the amount. The officer left the lorry near the circle and took the documents at about 9.00 p.m. Later at about 9.30 p.m., the said officer along with his staff came and took the lorry to the weighment bridge and after weighing, the lorry was brought to the police station. At that time, the time was about 11.30 p.m. Later the lorry was handed over to the RTO office along with the documents.

(3.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners - accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent -Lokayukta.