-1-

NC: 2024:KHC:15560
CRL.P No. 3417 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3417 OF 2024 (439-)
BETWEEN:
MR. NAGARAJ,
S/O PUTTA HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
APC 19461, HOYSALA DRIVER
BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION,
PRESENTLY ACP DRIVER,
PEENYA SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE R/AT NO.10, 1ST CROSS,
JAI MARUTHI EXTENSION,
KUMBARAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA,
BANGALORE-560 060.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. KARIAPPA .N.A, ADVOCATE)

AND:
Digitally
signed by STATE OF KARNATAKA,
SOWMYA D THOUGH POLICE INSPECTOR -19,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKA,
Location:
High Court BENGALURU URBAN,
of Karnataka BENGALURU-560 001,
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPECIAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR LOKAYUKTA,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001)
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, SPL.PP FOR LOKAYUKTA)

 -2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15560
CRL.P No. 3417 of 2024

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO

ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.18/2024 OF
LOKAYUKTA P.S. BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
7(a) AND 11 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT
WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE XXIII ADDL.CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CUM SPL.JUDGE (P.C. ACT)
BENGALURU.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. seeking for regular bail in Crime No.18/2024 of

Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Urban, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 11 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and amended Act, pending

on the file of the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge

and Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.

2. The allegations of the prosecution disclose that the

complainant is running a Private Gas Agency and ACP of Peenya

Sub-Division summoned him on the ground that he is doing

business of supplying gas in his area illegally. When the first

informant approached him, the ACP is said to have demanded

 -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:15560
CRL.P No. 3417 of 2024

Rs.2 lakhs in order to do such a business within his jurisdiction.

When he came out of the office of the ACP along with the

petitioner/accused No.1, who is the driver of the ACP and

accused No.2, who is the Head Constable said to have

demanded Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively towards

their share independently. A regular call was being made by

both the accused to the first informant and hence he has

lodged a complaint against the petitioner/accused No.1 and

other accused on 26.03.2024. A trap was laid down and

Investigating Officer has drawn a entrustment Mahazar and

then they proceeded to trap. It is alleged that the

petitioner/accused No.1 was trapped while receiving

Rs.50,000/- from the first informant and same was recorded in

a Trap Mahazar. Then the statement of the petitioner/accused

No.1 was said to have been recorded, wherein he asserted that

as per instructions of accused No.2, he called the first

informant and as per the instructions of accused No.2, he

demanded the amount, but the accused No.2 is alleged to have

been disputed the claim. However, the tainted amount was said

to have been recovered and the hand wash of the petitioner

was taken, which has shown positive to Phenolphthalein test.

 -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:15560
CRL.P No. 3417 of 2024

The Trap Mahazar was also drawn and petitioner/accused No.1

was arrested and produced before Special Judge. He was

remanded to the custody.

3. Then he has approached the learned

Special Judge seeking regular bail and bail petition came to be

rejected. Hence, the petitioner/accused No.1 is before this

Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused

No.1 and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for

respondent-Lokayuktha. Perused the records.

5. The allegations discloses that petitioner/accused

No.1 is working as a driver to ACP of Peenya Sub-Division. The

allegations further disclose that the first informant was doing

Private Gas Business and ACP is alleged to have demanded

Rs.2 lakhs from him so as to continue his business within his

jurisdiction. The allegations are that ACP has demanded Rs.2

lakhs while the accused No.2 is alleged to have demanded

Rs.25,000/- and the present petitioner who is arrayed as

accused No.1 is said to have demanded Rs.10,000/- monthly.

The tainted amount is alleged to have been recovered from the

 -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:15560
CRL.P No. 3417 of 2024

custody of the petitioner/accused No.1. There is prima facie

material evidence in the form of Trap Mahazar regarding

recovery of amount from the custody of the petitioner/accused

No.1. Hence, Under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, the presumption is in favour of prosecution.

6. However, records also disclose that the

petitioner/accused No.1 was already interrogated and his

statement was also recorded. The tainted amount is also

recovered and the major portion of the investigation is already

concluded. Admittedly, the petitioner/accused No.1 is only a

driver and he does not have any authority to control any law

and order or any business which takes place within the

jurisdiction of ACP. The records disclose that now the

prosecution is awaiting for FSL Report on the basis of which the

sanction is required to be obtained. Hence, the major portion of

the investigation is concluded and considering the status of

petitioner/accused No.1, question of he tampering the

prosecution witnesses regarding FSL Report or sanction does

not arise at all.

 -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:15560
CRL.P No. 3417 of 2024

7. At the same time, it is also interesting to note here

that complete allegations where directed against the ACP

demanding Rs.2 lakhs and subsequent demand by the present

petitioner/accused No.1 and other accused to the extent of

Rs.35,000/-. However, the Investigating Officer did not lodge

any FIR against ACP, who is alleged to have demanded Rs.2

lakhs but he has only prosecuted the petitioner/accused No.1

and other accused. Why the ACP was spared and what is

statement recorded by ACP is not at all forthcoming. As the

complaint allegations specifically allege that ACP has demanded

Rs.2 lakhs, it is evident that the Investigating Officer has also

not acted bonafiedly and he intends to conceal the material

evidence in this regard. Looking to these facts and

circumstances and considering the fact that presence of the

petitioner/accused No.1 is no more required by the

investigating agency, I do not find any impediment for

admitting the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail. The other

apprehensions raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor

can be meted-out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the

petition needs to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

following order.
 -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:15560
CRL.P No. 3417 of 2024

ORDER

I. The petition is allowed.

II. The petitioner/accused No.1 is directed to be

enlarged on bail in Crime No.18/2024 of Lokayukta Police

Station, Bengaluru Urban, registered for the offences

punishable under Section 7(a) and 11 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, pending on the file of the XXIII Additional

City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA),

Bengaluru, on he executing a personal bond for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the

like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the

following conditions that,-

(i) He shall not indulge in any of the criminal

activities
(ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution
witnesses either directly or indirectly.

(iii) He shall attend the Court on all the dates of

hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific
order.

(iv) He shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the

matter.
 -8-
NC: 2024:KHC:15560
CRL.P No. 3417 of 2024

(v) He shall Mark his attendance before SHO on

every first and third Monday between 9.00 a.m.
to 5.00 p.m. until the final report is submitted.

Sd/-
JUDGE

AMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35