IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14"' DAY OF OCTOBER 2.0.10
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE V_JAoA;»i1§:ArJ}:AN
CRIMINAL
BETWEEN: A R O 1 R
SILT. P. Muninarayanappa O, .
S / o Puttarma,
Age 58 years, V " j
Occ: Special Land Ar.4quA1s1m.;:: O'ffice1'--_b2,
KIADB, Gandhinagal'. A ' " ~.
Bangalore (refivred),A"" -
R/0 No.2Q~7',"«;E_$§'Inain,g . '
Kasthurin§a.g'aij,_;i'3anga1o.re..__= it , ...PETETIONER
[B3VfrSri.Ra\}i'V -. Counsel)
AND:" R' "O O
Tfihe fate of"I{ar_nataka,
. V "i'hroRughA..Karnataka Lokayuktha Police,
A 'B.an.ga]or.e"';
---- . v«.a'Repre=se11t.ed*'by its S.P.P.,
' . High coat: of Karnataka,
"BaD,_ga10re-- 560 00 I . .. RESPONDENT
O [Bye-Smt.T.M.Gayathri, Sp1.P.P. for
mokayuktha)
This Cr1.P. is filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on baii in
Cr.No.43/2010 of Lokayuktha Police, Bangalore, which
is registered for the offences P/U/Ss.7, 8 l3{l’){C){D)
12, r/W Sec. 12043 oflPC. ‘
This Crl.P. coming on for orders this
made the fol1owing:–
This petition is by Nofl whom, a
case is registered m7cr.1\id§.<i53/ 2.Q.'{0«.by the Lokayuktha
police for offencesV-vpunishiablle, Vtidnder Sections 7.
13(1)(c)(di)it/t 1~ 1d3§(2) the Prevention of
Corruptiofi:-. under Sections 465, 468,
47 420 andfjl.
fZ..,_T’h,e allegations in short are that the
lnspectogof Lokayutha, K.C.Lakshrninaryana. _
‘ :V”*l.odge’di a..:¢s”uo~moto complaint on 22.9.2010 to the effect
“..t1iatVin7’sjrespect of acquisition of lands for the purpose
of..es_tah1ishment of Hardware Park, 131’. Park, Aero
vlifiipace, Metro and High Speed ‘1’ rain and other projects,
it came to light that several irregularities have been
committed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer of
the KIADB who was in charge during the relevant
VB»
‘ E
period and that the complaint mentioned that one
N.R.Nagaraj, the Special Land Acquisition.-‘Officer
(accused No.1). during the period from to
28.6.2010 and some of the accused
were all working under him under’ *.*.ai*ious. posi.t_ions in 7
KIADB and during the aforesaid”–period,.”;in”resVp4ectofp
acquisition of land to thellexitent of acres out
of 8268-1014 in
Singahalli, Unasuriif
it”——-»~l3hatrainaranaha1li.
Areloionnarnangala, Gollahalli,
Huvinanayakanahalli and
Mahadei/”altodigehlallils compensation to the tune of
d _ was distributed and on verifying
after one Rukmangada came and
“info;fIIield’ about certain corrupt practices that had
.. place in respect of the land of one Srnt.Kamala
dbeing acquired, the Lokayuktha Inspector. after
examining the whole matter, noticed several
irregularities committed in the distribution of
compensation to Various persons and those
e
-‘xi…
irregularities numbering 10 having been highlighted in
the complaint itself and some of them are that, the
compensation had been given in respect of rno’re”flan.ds
than what was acquired; though the cases
to land acquisition were pending,”entlre.;con1pensation
have been distributed; in of
claimants were found to begplnot genuinefclalivrns and in
some cases, it was aiso noticejd that in respect of one
land, compensation ‘had’f’_lbeer–1»_ twice and the
cheques been} ‘issued:-l”*.r.rit.hout there being
thlelléupecial Land Acquisition
Offic’e1j.”pl A A it
3.i”Ba’sed’V–.on._the said illegalities or irregularities
after Ve1″iTying the records, the complaint was
13 accused persons for the offences as
A As far as this petitioner is concerned, it
A is Qalleged that he was the Spl.Land Acquisition officer
A * the period from 21.11.2005 to 26.03.2009 and
i it was during his tenure, the illegalities that are noted
in the complaint at page No. 11 of this petition said to
have taken place. – Therefore, the complaint of the
%
,._..
Police inspector led to the case being registered as
aforesaid.
4. Submission of Sri.Ravi B.Nai}i…1§5arn–ed ‘senior
Counsel for the petitioner is the peti:tione:r’VVVhpa’s
retired from service in the.year22-0209
has been roped in this and the period
when he was the “complaints
against him, and ordered in
respect.of..:Van5v’::.’of referred to in
the even when the raid
police did not secure
any incriminating” Vprnaterials, which could have a
vb.-ggaririgp on0ti’1e,c_on1plaint allegations made against this
‘ Apart from that, it is also not established
0’ . H that A petitioner had amassed wealth
disproportionate to his known source of income. It is
lialso submitted by him that though the petitioner was
the Spl.LAO during the aforementioned period from
21. I 12005 to 26.03.2009, the complaint refers to the
land acquisition proceedings that took place even far
too earlier and the amount of compensation said to
5*?
:6-
have been distributed also has not been properly
indicated in the complaint, as there are _.Vari.ati.Qns
between the amount mentioned in one_.A*place*land’—~in~.g
another place in the complaintygitselufi’
submitted by the learned Senior:..A_’C’ounse:l1′
relevant documents been the
Lokayuktha police.” and” after’ ‘~verii”yi1″1g the
documents, the alleged’illegal’iti_esl.or: irregularities have
been brouglltjgtio ‘thgessjcircumstances, the
petitioner ther’ef’o_re”be ban.
5.’ Ftirtiaer .sgsu,lf)1ir1i’ssion made by the learned
Senior” Counsel his the petitioner is suffering from
v_»}i:idne3*gprobleIn____and has to undergo dialysis twice or
‘ :v””t.hriee.yjnC”a.__Week and this factor also be taken into
consideration. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on
the ‘decision reported in 1980 (1) Supreme Court Cases
to contend that pre–trial detention for a
considerable period of time goes against the spirit of
the Code and the Constitution. Mainly because the
investigating agency has got to record the statements
of some of the witnesses, that itself cannot be made a
El»
-.n
ground to refuse bail, so long as the prosecution
apprehension with regard to tampering of evidenc’e”‘afid:
chances of the petitioner’ absconding are ”
As such, the learned Senior Co1:1nse1« that
the petitioner be released
conditions.
6. Smt.T.M.Gaya’thii,A ‘t–1ea.rrie(i.hj..Sip1.,P.P. for the
Lokayuktha on her part». objections
flied, argued» _;_the_: cp~e::tsp§nfer teas the Sp1.LAO
during the Vtpezéroidi £005 to 2009 and it
Qefiod, several iilegalities and
irregaiaritiesxii to the distribution of
has: taken place and having regard to
‘ of complaint and the illegaiities noticed
” . investigation, grant of Sail. to this petitisner
is not warranted. It is her submission that when the
_ V raid was conducted, huge arncmnt was recovered fronr ‘ I
the house of this petitioner. Under these.”
circumstances, having regard to the magnitude of the
offences alleged against this petitiener and several
if
other accused persons. grant of bail is therefore not
warranted.
7. Having thus heard both sides,
consideration is, whether the petitioner can -be rel_egas.:–j:dll ‘
on bail or not’?
8. The complaint as this
petitioner is concerriedare heltwttas working
as Spl.LAO of K159132005 to 2009,
during had been taken
alleged under P.C.Act
particularlviinidcrlv4’Sle:ctioris 7 and 8 gets attracted or
not v{fo.1ild_ the basic ingredients of
Sections ‘and____8 are being made out against the
‘ ,l”‘petitior1c_rl.”v .._So far as Section 7 is concerned, it is in
“..resplectfofi1’a public servant in taking gratification. As
far Section 8 of the RC. Act is concerned, it has to be
that this petitioner accepted or obtained or
attempted to accept from any person, for himself or for
any other person, any gratification whatever as a
motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal
means, any public servant whether named or
%”
so
otherwise to do or to forbear to do any official act.
These ingredients will have to be made out_.__before
holding that Section 8 of the RC. Act getsjlattracted
against this petitioner.
9. Apart from the above””factors, «smiley ‘
have to be taken note of’ is petitioner
have retired from servicecllrin thxexyear
respect of the alleged said'”to””have been
committed during they are all
verifiable :jrefer_en;:e«to”the[doc_iifn1ents. Even in the
co1nplai’nt,V ‘stated that the raiding party
has colelectedf t.he’._d0::(;ii1rr1ents pertaining to payment of
v»c5’3.m15ensatio’n.,VV_ _____ ‘@015 the case rests mainly on the
‘ “doc-u_n1en_ts so far recovered by the investigating agency
” . and lasxfftheillegalities referred to in the complaint also
can verified with reference to the documents which
“re in possession of the investigating agency, in my
view, it is unlikely that the petitioner who is a retired
Government servant is likely to tamper with the official
documents at his stage of life. More so, considering the
health condition of the petitioner as it is stated in the
fix
I’.
…[g.a
petition as Well as during the course of the submission
made by the learned Senior Counsel Sri.RaVi
namely; the petitioner is said to be suffer’ing3;–«_lsfifom
Kidney disease and requires dialysis or.cth-rice_”‘in’. ‘_
a week, this factor also inclinves”Ii3-erto–‘_’granitlbailvto this f l
petitioner.
10. In the above*..:.u:l§iFCurnstariceS_,
made by the 1earne’cl_Spl,P’;’Fl. for the
Lokayuktha that friolt’_ientitled for bail,
cannot be tjothe totality of the
facts and.cirrifc;rnstanc’e.s’o’f this case and the condition
of the llpetitiorierl.’Lflipiprehension of the prosecution can
.bfe taken car-e._of A by imposing stringent conditions on
‘ *t.he«ipe~titi_o11er while granting bail.
the result, petition is allowed, subject to
conditions:–
a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his
executing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.l,O0,000/~ with two sureties for the
likesum out of whom one shall be solvent
2»
«’4′
(cl
..-E’ .«
surety, to the satisfaction of the trial
Court.
He shall not tamper with the prosecutio:n~..v
evidence and he shall not give
Witnesses in any manner T’
or indirectly and Wsliall
the witness or §§i\r6′”*ir1?1ucernen'”t
kind. 2 V V.
So far as of’-a.ttenda’n§ce is
concern’ed3 in” the “health
condition ‘o_fthe by the
learned I – “Seilior..,:* \ for the
Zn petitioner shall mark his
” « before the Superintendent
ofVl?§olice,”{lokayL1ktha Police, Bangalore
City,_____or. in his absence his incharge, on
,.-,,_151″ and 30″] of every month at any
lVV”.i~.tlin1e between 10 am. and 5 pm. If one
ix-_’l:of these days happens to fall on
(C1)
Sunday, in that event. the petitioner
shall mark his attendance on Saturday.
He shall leave Bangalore City
of the
not
Without prior permission
jurisdiction trial Court.
E’?
wfzz
(e) If he is in possession of passport, he
shall surrender the same to the trial
Court and he shall not make
attempt to leave the country.
The aforesaid conditions are im_pos’e.d’t._o’ erisure
that there is no tampering of evidenee of ‘
petitioner absconding. V.*if_the”‘petitionerV’-yiolates
one of the aforesaid the Poiice
are at liberty to CV;niir’t._ _for’car1ce11atiori of bail.