. 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3183/2019 BETWEEN : 1. Thouseef, S/o Chote Saab, Aged about 32 years, Assistant Engineer, E-10 Sub-Division, BESCOM, Kaggadasapura, . R/at No.203, 36 th Cross, HBR 4 th Block, Bangalore. Permanent R/o. Soolibele Village and Post, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District – 562 129.

2. Shivakumar M, S/o Late Mullaiah, Aged about 27 years, Meter Reader on Contract basis, E-10 Sub-division, BESCOM, Kaggadasapura, Bangalore. R/at Abbareddy Layout, Kaggadasapura, Bangalore. Permanent R/o Suvarnavathi Street, Mamballi Yalanduru Taluk, Chamarajanagara District – 571 441. … Petitioners

(By Sri Hashmath Pasha, Senior Advocate for Sri.Kaleem Sabir, Advocate)

. 2

AND :

State of Karnataka, By Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bangalore City Station, Bangalore – 560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri Venkatesh P.Dalawai, Advocate)

This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.14/2019 of ACB, Bangalore City Station, Bangalore for offence punishable under Section, Bangalore for offence punishable under Section 7(a) and 17-A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioners are accused in Crime No.14/2019 of

Anti Corruption Bureau, station,

Bangalore City, registered for the offences punishable under Section 7(a)(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. The present petition has been filed under Section

439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail.

2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel

Sri.Hashmath Pasha appearing for the petitioners and

. 3

learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri.Venkatesh P.

Dalawai appearing for the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant is said to be running a paying guest in the premises at Nos.28 & 31 of BBMP PID Khata No.83-

408-29 at Nagawara Palya, Bangalore. To the said premises, electricity supply was taken. Since the said electricity supply was not converted for commercial purpose, the officials of BESCOM, E-10 Sub-division, situated at Kaggadasapura, had objected and had informed the complainant that he has to pay penalty to an extent of Rs.1,38,000/- as back billing charges. In this connection, the complainant approached the accused/1st petitioner who was working as an Assistant Engineer of E-

10 sub-division station at BESCOM. The 1st petitioner is said to have demanded a bribe of Rs.1,10,000/- for reduction of penalty and change of tariff from domestic to commercial one.

. 4

4. Complaint came to be lodged on 24.04.2019, on the basis of which the aforesaid crime was registered.

Pre-trap panchanama was conducted and the complainant along with the shadow witness and panch witnesses proceeded to the spot as per telephonic conversation.

Accused No.2 is said to have been sent by accused No.1 to one Bhuvaneshwari park to receive the bribe amount. A trap was laid and accused No.2 was apprehended with the tainted currency notes amounting to Rs.1,10,000/-. On interrogation of accused No.2, it was revealed that he was sent by accused No.1 to collect the money. Thereafter, accused No.1 was also apprehended in the BESCOM office.

The explanation of both accused Nos.1 and 2 were recorded. The accused/petitioners were then arrested.

5. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Hashmath

Pasha appearing for the petitioners contended that the 1 st petitioner has not demanded any bribe as alleged and no amount has been recovered at his instance. He being the

Assistant Engineer in BESCOM, E-10 Sub-division,

. 5

situated at Kaggadasapura, Bangalore, a false case has been filed by the complainant in collusion with others. He states that the recorded voice message is also not that of the 1 st petitioner. He further states that the 2 nd petitioner is not a public servant and even if the allegations are accepted against the 2 nd petitioner, then the offence committed by him is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners are in judicial custody and they are ready to abide by any reasonable condition, which may be imposed. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor

Sri.Venkatesh P Dalawai having filed his objections, contends that the 1st petitioner has demanded a bribe of

Rs.1,10,000/- from the complainant to extend an official favour for the purpose of converting Bescom connection from residential use to commercial use and he has sent accused No.2 to collect the bribe amount and the accused

No.2 has been caught red-handed at the time of receiving

. 6

the bribe amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. He further states that the audio conversation between the 1 st petitioner and complainant has been recorded and the same is part of the record. He submits that there is a prima facie case against both the petitioners and therefore, seeks to dismiss the bail petition.

7. It is the case of the prosecution that the 1 st petitioner who was working as an Assistant Engineer, demanded a bribe of Rs.1,10,000/- from the complainant when the complainant approached the Bescom office for conversion of use of electricity from domestic to commercial. The 1 st petitioner is said to have demanded the aforesaid bribe for reduction of penalty and change of tariff from the domestic to commercial use. It is seen that after conducting the entrustment mahazar, the officials went to one Bhuvaneshwari park, where the 1 st petitioner is said to have sent the second petitioner to collect the bribe. The said fact has been revealed by the statement of accused No.2. It is also seen that there is no recovery of

. 7

bribe amount at the instance of the 1 st petitioner. The accused No.2 is working as a meter reader attached to the

Bescom. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no work pending for the complainant with the 2nd petitioner and he has not at all demanded or accepted any bribe as alleged.

8. The petitioners are arrested on 24.4.2019 and since then they are in judicial custody. They are not required for any further investigation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, and also considering the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioners, I am of the view that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Hence, the following:-

ORDER

(a) the petition is allowed;

(b) petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.14/2019 registered at Anti Corruption Bureau, Bangalore city police

. 8

station, for the offence punishable under Section 7(a)(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing their personal bond, each in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

(c) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner and they shall co-operate with the further investigation, if any;

(d) petitioners shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional police station on 15 th of every month between 10 am and 4 pm till the filing of the charge sheet or until further orders; and

(e) petitioners shall be regular in attending the court proceedings.

Sd/- JUDGE cbc