MARENNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner-accused u/S 439 of Cr.P.C . seeking to enlarge him in Anti Corruption Bureau Police Station, Ballari Crime No. 15/2019 for the offence punishable u/S 7 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (for short ' P.C. Act '). The accused is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest. Therefore, the counsel is praying for enlarging him on regular bail among the grounds urged therein.

(2.) Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent has filed objections to the bail petition by reiterating the averments made in the complaint and so also the FIR said to be recorded by the Police and thereafter proceeded with the case for investigation as where the accused has demanded bribe in a sum of Rs.4,000/- but the complainant has tendered in a sum of Rs.1,000/- and thereafter the crime came to be registered and proceeded with the case for investigation. The materials in which collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and so also in the process relating to initiation of crime, are found to be that there are prima facie materials against the accused. These are all the contentions taken by the learned SPP for the respondent-State and sought for dismissal of the petition as the petitioner being a Government Servant is involved in demand of bribe for attending official work.

(3.) Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner who has taken me through the contents of the complaint and so also the FIR recorded by the Police, but this accused working as Bill Collector in the office of CMC, Hosapete, relating to change of mutation of landed property measuring 37 cents situated at Ward No. 30 of Amaravati, which stand in the name of Sudha. In this connection, the complainant approached the petitioner being arraigned as an accused and also filed an application to that effect as she submitted but the accused demanded to give bribe in a sum of Rs.4,000/- to do the official work. He gave Rs.1,000/- initially and told that he would give remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- after completion of the work. This allegation is made in the complaint. However, this allegation made in the complaint as well as recorded in the FIR registered case and proceeded with the case for investigation in order to trap the accused as even though the accused did not commit the offences. The accused is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest and moreover the family members are depending upon the accused. If the accused is kept behind the bar for a longer period his family members would be ruined in the Society. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the accused is ready to abide by any terms and conditions that would be imposed by this Court in the event of consideration of his bail application. These are all the contentions taken by the petitioner seeking for granting regular bail.