IN THE HIGH comm OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THE THE gm DAY 0F JULY 201o,,.V'A'.._ 'A._V_
BEFORE ' '
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE N A:s;A.RD'AVV"~.T."'
CRIMINAL PETITION ND.32Sg-3/"2o'i_D~._
BETWEEN:
DR.N.R.NAGARAJU,
S/0 REVANASIDDAWA, .
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, _ _ -.
occ : SPL. LAND AcQuIs--rT:oN_ 1. ;
0FFIC£R, K.I.A.D.B., '- '
R/A.No.E--80?, V 1 G.
PRESTIGE GRE~E'fiWDO[3_ APARTME'Nj_"f--,.Vv
TAVAREKERE. r~aA1¥°;%i' ROAD,' _ =
BANGALORE. V' PETITIONER
(BY SR:{E : RAvIAV..éV.VNA:Ej<", s R..:'_'ADv: V
AND: V" V V V T '
THE STATE DE _:'<AR'NAAT.A'K'A,
BY THE L0i(AYUK__THA POLICE,
..... V'
REé'REAsEbaTvED"'Ey THE
"SPETCIAE-_. F'--'UB§;I{3"PROSECTUOR FOR
LC.Ki?.*YUKT£V-LA ACASES,
HIGH CQURIGDE KARNATAKA,
3 BANGALQRE. RESPONDENT
_-.(E;v.sR1V:”s.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADV)
‘ CRL.P FILED ms 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE
nae PETITIONER on BAEL IN <:R.No.24/2010 or
""'L'0KAYUi(TAH POLECE, BANGALORE cnv, WHICH Is
REGD., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7, 13(1)(d) RKW 13(2)
CF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
CRLP IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY_.._"_i'HE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 1
0 R D E R
Petitioner is arrayed as
Cr.No.24/2010, registered for:roif_eng:e.s
under Sections 7, 13(1) (d.)_'rea:d'–.iiii'it.h
of Prevention of Corruptio:'i'i"i'.i.3:'‘.Af1..’V_~..iii__’_’_.Petitioner I
who has bee’ni”;;gi1orki=ngg Sgi3:.ei:’i21.i_’___:.L:iand Acquisition
Officer of mo.; ..g ajiiieuged toiihave demanded from
the con}pIVaina_.nt:]ifirst:i'”2″informant, a bribe of
Rs.15,().0,OOuO,’..~:§’tiaroogiiiiiaccused No.1 who is working
V’Fii’rs5t”‘{)ii.’..iésion fiisisistant in the same office to issue
disburse the compensation amount
gra-nte_d~~to’.»’Rthe sister of the first informant. On
accused No.1 on behaif of accused No.2
-.de.m?anded and accepted bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- from
the first informant and the same was recovered by
the raiding party.
2. I have heard Sri.Ravi 3 Naik, :4eenj’e.d
.’_’
Senior Counsei for the petitioner
Rajendra Redciy for the Lokayukt»hV2t.
3. The entire case agai-.nst;”‘at:co»se’d:i”Nioi.:2..Aiisj:
based on the conduct t{_rid__ stat.exmentV:iiitzégde_lby
accused No.1.
4. Sri.S.G.Raie_n:drAa’i._ R;edd~-y;..t.jearned Counsei
for the Lokayuktha vv.it1’i}”v_a:ttvei§tion to the
contents of fir’e.t:=-iiriforrf{a–tion wouid submit that the
first inform_a:nt ihacihisimetetihe petitioner and enquired
abotritithte conip.ensation payabie to his sister and the
he’titio{1ier–4ha.d told the first informant that if he
coi£tt.pe.§1’s.ation, he shouid bribe him a sum of
V. Rs.ii’}00″,i:€).OO’;/~ and in that connection, he had
..,int:*oduic’ed accused No.1 and toid the first informant
t’oi;’ja’y the amount to accused No.1. x I
.. E if,
V
N. c:
if-tfign/~
S. The first information does not reveal that
petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.1,O(‘).,..(V)V_it’):(_:)i,{_-
from the first informant nor the first
agreed to give the bribe offim
petitioner.
6. The petitionerw’iV_i’::._Vn iniiii-.ii§.5iciaiiiV”
Investigation of the “case The
Petitioner is u”‘~1″s”,3’:”‘.:i’investigation.
Therefore, petiti.onQ-r:..§vs-denIaV’rg:etia’o’n:’::”‘b’a’i| subject to
foliowing con-ditid’n.s:,
I. iiii _vpiei;4itio’r2e’r siiflailviexecute bond for a
stimeof and shail offer two
Vs_i;retii”esV_Vfor.the. iiiie sum to the satisfaction of
~ juirisciigttionaifiou rt.
ii.V”i…__TE5eii”_’petit’i’oner shaii not intimidate or tamper
with ‘prosecution witnesses. ‘”‘
3éi”§..
Sgéga