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:

ORDER
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

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

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

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.
him

and

He also denied any conspiracy between

accused

No.1.

Therefore,

whether

this

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

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