P H DAYANANDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos. 2, 4 and 6 in Crime No.80/2015 registered by respondent Police for the offences punishable under Secs. 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Secs. 409, 468, 471, 420 of IPC and pending on the file of LXXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Court, Bengaluru, have filed this petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge them on bail.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsels appearing for the respondent Karnataka Lokayukta Police, City Wing, Bengaluru.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits, accused No.2, who is the petitioner in Crl.P.No. 4640/2016 in the capacity as Secretary of Bhavani Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. without knowing the fact that site bearing No.14, 'Q' block formed in Sy.No. 132 and 133 (part of old Sy.No.17), Kathriguppa village, now called BSK 3rd stage, Bangalore, (herein after referred to as site) was allotted in favour of one Smt. K.S.Sowmya @ Soundarya and an absolute sale deed dt. 22-06-1999 was executed in her favour and she was put in possession of the site under possession certificate dt. 11-07-2001, has re-allotted the site in favour of his sister-in-law Smt. Bhagyalakshmi - accused No.4. He submits, accused No.4 in turn sold the site in favour of Smt. Nagarathna - accused No.3 and that there was a suit filed by the complainant against accused No.3 in O.S.No.7246/2015 for recovery of possession of the site from accused No.3 with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Subsequently, accused No.4 Bhagyalakshmi came to be impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit. In the said suit, defendants 1 and 2 who are accused Nos.3 and 4 herein, immediately after coming to know the above facts have filed affidavits surrendering the possession of the site along with the key of the building constructed in the site in favour of the complainant and have stated that they have no objection for the Court to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff. He submits, accused petitioners have been in judicial custody ever since the date of their apprehension 60 days in respect of petitioners in the first two petitions and 70 days in respect of petitioner in the last petition. He submits, even to this day, respondents have not filed any charge sheet and hence, they are entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right. However, petitioners are prepared to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court while granting them bail. Therefore he prays for allowing the petition by granting bail to the petitioners.