Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, N. Ramesh, a Tahsildar working at Magadi Taluk Office, filed a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.4/2020 registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Police, Ramanagara, for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by one D. Ramaiah, who had applied on 26.9.2014 for rectification of RTC records in respect of his land in Sy. No. 23 of Dabbaguli Village. The complainant alleged that his application was kept pending and that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.40,000/- to process it. Based on this information, the ACB police laid a trap on 10.3.2020 and recovered tainted money from accused No.2, not from the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel argued that the trap mahazar indicated that the petitioner was not present at the time of recovery and that there was no prima facie evidence of demand by the petitioner. The respondent's counsel opposed the bail, but the court, after hearing both sides, noted that the tainted money was recovered from accused No.2 and there was no recovery from the petitioner. The court also observed that the allegations did not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner for refusal of bail. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, directing that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions including appearing before the investigating officer as required and not tampering with evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Grant of Bail - The petitioner, a Tahsildar, sought anticipatory bail in a case under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging demand of bribe of Rs.40,000/- for rectification of RTC. The trap was laid and tainted money was recovered from accused No.2, not from the petitioner. The court held that since there was no recovery from the petitioner and no prima facie evidence of demand by him, the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail. (Paras 1-5) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7(a) - Demand of Bribe - Prima Facie Case - The court observed that the complainant's application was pending for a long time and the trap resulted in recovery from accused No.2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was not present at the time of recovery. The court found that the allegations did not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner for refusal of bail. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a public servant accused of demanding and accepting a bribe, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. when the tainted money was recovered from another accused and there is no direct evidence of demand by the petitioner.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail. In the event of his arrest in Crime No.4/2020, he shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and shall not tamper with evidence.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Section 7(a) Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- Prima facie case
- Recovery of tainted money
- Demand of bribe
