High Court Karnataka High Court

Mr K Jagadish S/O Late B Kariyappa vs Lokayuktha Police on 14 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Mr K Jagadish S/O Late B Kariyappa vs Lokayuktha Police on 14 October, 2010
Author: V.Jagannathan
_1..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010'
BEFORE » T' _ J
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE V.JAGANNA.'I"I*II0II\I'.   ~

CRIMINAL PETITION 1$IO;'5'O51s;f2O1'O'-V   

BETWEEN:

Mr.K.Jagadish

Aged about 37 years

S / o Late Bjiariyappa _

Mysore City Corporation      " ,

Mysore.  H "   jy  1,. *'....PE'I'ITIONER

5' '   

AND:

LokayuI;thaOpoI:%;;e  _  I
Mysore.  --_ ' V  *   ' ' ...RESPONDENT

(By .vGé1y_e1'i}IrI~,  Counsel for Lokayukta)

 A CIuM1N.AL""I5E'1*IT1ON Is FILED UNDER SECTION 439
"--OR.,P.'CV PRAYENG fII~zAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO

 «TI~..1E'.':;'I*J'E'I'I'1'IONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.15/10 OF
KARNA_TAKA~LC1KAYUKTHA p.s., MYSORE, WHICH Is REGD., FOR

 4 THE OEEENCE P/U/S 7 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,

  T'IéI1s PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

% "j -C.(.)E§R'I' MADE THE FOLLOWING:



-2"
ORDER

Petitioner who is said to be Assistant Accounts Officer in

Mysore City Corporation seeks bail following the._cVasel’o:”being

registered against him by the Lokayuktha po1ice,–*.4f§r

punishable under Section 7 of the PreVen–tion–l_’of Acpt. b

1988.

2. Case of the prosecutionlvlin:._llsh_ort petitioner
herein demanded Rs.5,;§0O/ from the
complainant in order d~eath_’:v:b._certificate to one
Smt.JhanCy died in a road
accident. alleged, the petitioner was

arrested Zafiti”thejtg-1a1′;?{jc1i:+i.,§1cc1:fi_éd’to grant him bail.

3. Submission of.Athe.°’petitioner’s counsel Sri Santhosh is

V that, reading of complaint does not indicate that the

lfippetitioner”demanded the amount from the complainant and

more-f’_oVferv ev_en.V.avs”‘ per the complaint, documents were handed

over by the petitioner to the complainant much earlier and as far

demand of Rs.2,000/– prior to the date of trap is concerned,

cthere».isn5 no material and therefore, in the absence of demand by

~the.}accused, even from the prima facie angle, the trial Court

” ~ “could not have been refused bail.

I’)

_5.oo

“,3”,

4. Though the above submission is refused by the learned
counsel for Lokaynktha Smt.Gayathri, having regard to the
nature of offence alleged and punishment prescribed and also
punishment from minimum five years to six years imp1’is.bnment

and petitioner also being employed in Mysore City&..Corpofr.ation

as Assistant Accounts Officer, likelihood of

justice. As far as tamper of evidence-is” conce_rned§’f’he couldvnbe ‘

put on terms while granting him on A’

5. In the result, petitioneiffbe released:onR’bail” on his

executing personal bond for with ‘two. sureties, out

of that, one surety shoulduébe the satisfaction of

the t;ial:;;5hal].’.Vpnotf’ tamper with the prosecution
witness. v:l%Ie”s’hefl1V’m:arl{~his-__attendance before the concerned

police on evuerydSatu1°day_ atpany time between 10.00 am. and

Sd/-i
Judge