1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2014

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2237 OF 2014 BETWEEN:

K. M. LAXMANA GOWDA S/O. K.A. MANJE GOWDA AGED 51 YEARS SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH THOGARIHUNKAL, CHICKMAGALUR TALUK RESIDENT OF NEAR SANTHE MARKET MUDIGERE POST CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-576161.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI A. H. BHAGAVAN, ADV.)

AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, CHICKMAGALUR REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR LOKAYUKTHA MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560001.

... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALWAI, S.P.P.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438

OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.3/2013 OF LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, CHIKMAGALUR, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 13(1)(c)(d) AND 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND ALSO U/S 119, 120, 120-B, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 470, 471 AND 201 OF I.P.C.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2

O R D E R

This is the petition filed by the petitioner / accused

No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory

bail to direct the respondent Police to release him on

bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences

punishable under Sections 13(c), 13(d)(i)(ii) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under

Sections 119, 120, 120B, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 470,

471 and 201 of I.P.C. registered by the respondent

Police Station in Crime No.3/2013.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the petitioner / accused No.2 and also the learned

Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent -

Lokayukta.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the

course of his arguments submitted that so far as

petitioner / accused No.2 is concerned, the only

allegation that he also conspired with accused No.1 and

the mother of accused No.1 and uploaded the name of

3

the mother of accused No.1 in the computer for selecting

her name for allotment of the house and also for release

of amount for construction of the house building.

Learned counsel made the submission that whether

there is conspiracy is a matter to be ascertained during

the course of trial and it is not a case of the prosecution

that by making alleged conspiracy and committing the

alleged fraud, this petitioner / accused No.2 himself has

taken the allotment of either house site or amount got

released for construction of the said site. Hence, he

submitted now the investigation is completed and

charge-sheet has been filed and he is ready to abide any

conditions to be imposed by the Court. Hence,

submitted to allow the petition and admit the petitioner

to anticipatory bail.

4. As against this, learned Special Public

Prosecutor during the course of his arguments submitted

that the material collected during investigation clearly

goes to show that there was a conspiracy between

4

accused No.2 and also accused No.1 for recommending

the name of the mother of accused No.1 for allotment of

the house site. He made the submission that the said

scheme is made for persons, who are holding B.P.L. card

and who are more than sixty years of age. He submitted

that accused Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with each other

and suppressing the true facts represented and by

making such false representation got the site allotted to

the mother of accused No.1. Hence, submitted that the

bail application of accused No.1 is already rejected and

the present petitioner has to appear before the concerned

Special Court. Hence, he submitted to reject the bail

petition.

5. I have perused the averments made in the bail

petition, F.I.R., complaint and other materials placed on

record.

6. The fact that the petitioner / accused No.2 is

working as a Secretary in the said Panchayath is not in

dispute, but looking to the allegation made in the

5

complaint, there is no specific allegation by taking the

name of present petitioner that he also conspired with

accused No.1 in committing the alleged offence. But,

during the course of investigation, the Investigating

Officer has collected the material and arraigned the

present petitioner as accused No.2 while filing the

charge-sheet. So, the allegation against the present

petitioner looking to the charge-sheet material though he

was working as a Secretary in the said Panchayath, he

also conspired with accused No.1 and recommended the

name of the mother of accused No.1 by uploading the

name of the mother of accused No.1 in computer and

ultimately, got allotted the house site in favour of the

mother of accused No.1. In the bail petition, the present

petitioner has denied the allegation and it is his

contention that he was not at all knowing there was

fraud committed by accused No.1 and his mother in

getting the house allotted into the name of the mother of

accused No.1. He also denied any conspiracy between

him and accused No.1. Therefore, whether this

6

Secretary, i.e., the present petitioner also colluded with

accused No.1 in committing the alleged offences by

conspiring together is a matter to be established during

the course of the trial. Now, the investigation is

completed and charge-sheet is filed. Therefore, to secure

the presence of the present petitioner before the

Investigating Officer as well as before the concerned

Court, stringent conditions can be imposed and he can

be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

The respondent Police are directed to release the

petitioner / accused No.2 on bail in the event of his

arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections

13(c), 13(d)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

and also under Sections 119, 120, 120B, 408, 409, 420,

465, 468, 470, 471 and 201 of I.P.C. registered by the

respondent Police Station in Crime No.3/2013, subject

to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond

for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty

7

thousand only) with one solvent surety for

the likesum to the satisfaction of the

concerned Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly

tamper with any of the prosecution

witnesses;

(iii) Petitioner shall make himself available to

the Investigating Officer for interrogation

whenever called for; and

(iv) Petitioner shall appear before the

concerned Court within thirty days from

the date of this order and execute the

personal bond and also the surety bond.

SD/-

JUDGE

kvk

>"Z[(|Xe