KABC010090902023

IN THE COURT OF XXXI ADD. CITY CIVIL AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-82)
Present:
Sri B. Jayantha Kumar, B.A.Law., LL.M.,
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases
related to elected former and sitting MPs/ MLAs
in the State of Karnataka)

Dated this the 15th day of April, 2023

Crl. Misc. No.3063 / 2023

PETITIONER: Sri K. Madal Virupakshappa

S/o Late Mallappa
Aged about 74 year
R/at: Channeshpura Village
Channagiri Taluk
Davanagere District-577 221
(Sri Sandeep Patil, Advocate for petitioner)

V/s
RESPONDENT: State by Karnataka Lokayukta Police
Bengaluru City Police Station,
Bengaluru
(Sri Santosh S.Nagarale, Learned Special
Public Prosecutor)
*****

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner Sri K.Madal

Virupakshappa, who is arraigned as accused No.1, under Sec.439

 2 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) praying for

an order to enlarge him on regular bail in Crime No.13/2023,

registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Benglauru City

P.S., for the offences punishable under Sec.7(a) & (b), 7(A), 8, 9

and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘P.C. Act’ for

short).

2. The grounds urged by the petitioner in this petition are

as follows:-

“The Sections invoked at the time of registration of the FIR

are under Sec.7(a) & (b) of the P.C.Act and to invoke the said
provisions and the alleged commission of an offence under the said
provision, the public servant concerned himself should have
demanded and accepted the bribe amount or attempted to get any
undue advantage in order to perform a public duty. In the present
case, there are no such allegation that the petitioner had ever
demanded any pecuniary advantage in order to do a public duty in
favour of the complainant. The petitioner was not the person who
was trapped pursuant to the FIR. Such being the case, the
petitioner is entitled for regular bail.

It is further contended that there was no official favour or

any official work pending with the petitioner in order to show
official favour to the complainant and as such the same also not
averred in the complaint and therefore, in the absence of existence
 3 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

of any official favour, demand or acceptance, it cannot be said that

the petitioner has committed any offence under Sec.7 of the
P.C.Act.

It is further contended that any person is said to be guilty of

the offence under Sec.7A of the P.C.Act, when anyone obtains or
accepts or makes an attempt to obtain from any person any undue
advantage as a motive or reward to influence any public servant to
perform or cause to perform a public duty either by such public
servant or by another public servant. In the present case, petitioner
has neither contacted the complainant nor has received any
gratification in order to influence any public servant to perform a
public duty. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to regular bail.

It is further contended that there are no allegations in the

complaint to show that a commercial organisation has caused any
undue advantage to the petitioner so as to obtain or retain its
commercial business.

It is contended that Sec.9 of the Act is referable only to the

bribing of a public servant by a Commercial organisation and the
person who could be hauled up is only the commercial
organisation and no one else. Hence, there could not have been any
offence said to have been committed by the petitioner under Sec.9
punishable under Sec.10 of the Act and therefore, the petitioner is
entitled for regular bail.

It is contended that the illegal gratification came to be

demanded on two counts, firstly, on the score that the tender that
had been sought for by him has to be granted and secondly, after
 4 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

such compliance of the tender, smooth passage of the invoices that

would be submitted by him. It is further contended that from the
material available on record as is evident that the tender allotment
committee had granted tender in favour of the informant, to which
committee the petitioner is no way concerned as early as January
2023. It is not the case of the prosecution that the informant has
submitted the invoices/bills in relation to the materials said to have
supplied by him and that the invoices / bills are not passed for
payment. In fact, the evidence on record show that the informant
has not even supplied the materials in relation to the tender that
was awarded in his favour. In the absence of any materials been
supplied by the informant and subsequent thereto, there was no
submission of bills towards the supply of materials pending, it
cannot be said that the element of demand of illegal gratification as
against the alleged clearance of the bills is present. There is no
prima facie case.

It is further contended that there is no compliance of

Sec.41 and 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and
therefore, the petitioner is entitled bail in the case as laid down in
the cases of Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil.

It is further contended that the petitioner is heart patient

and he suffering age-related problems, the Doctor who attended
him implanted a stunt instead of giving him a major surgical
treatment which infact was warranted. He has got pain in his chest,
giddiness, uneasiness, fainting attacks, difficulty in breathing. He
is also having problems while answering calls of nature. For
emergency treatment, the petitioner has been advised to take blood
 5 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

thinning agents and immediately thereafter, to rush to the hospital

for the treatment for his problems. The petitioner came to be
treated for his heart ailment at the Apollo Hospital, Bangalore and
continuing to take treatment in the said hospital right from June
2022 till the date Investigating Officer laid his hands upon him.
The petitioner is aged about 75 years and the offence is not
punishable with more than 7 years of imprisonment and there is no
thing for the petitioner to tamper with the prosecution evidence.
The investigation has almost came to an end and he is law maker
being sitting MLA, he owns and possess vast immovable
properties worth hundreds of crores of rupees besides being an
agriculturist and law maker. He is public servant and he has deep
roots in the society and there are no reasonable grounds to believe
that the petitioner is guilty of any offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. The petitioner undertakes to co-operate and
assist in fair investigation/ trial of the case and that he will not
directly or indirectly make any inducement or hold threat to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him
or her from disclosing such facts to the Court. Hence, prayed for
granting regular bail.”

3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor filed objections to

the above petition para-wise denying the contentions of the

accused taken in his application and further contended that on the

basis of complaint lodged by one Sri Shreyas Kashyap S/o

B.S.Gururaj, Partner, Chemixil Corporation, Karnataka Lokayukta

 6 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

Police, Bengaluru City has registered case in Crime No.13/2023

for offences punishable under Sec.7(a), 7(b), 7-A, 8, 9 and 10 of

the P.C.Act, 1988. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1. The

petitioner is sitting MLA of Channagiri Vidhanasabha

Constituency and Chairman of KSDL and hence, he is public

servant. The complainant has alleged that the accused No.1 and his

son accused No.2 have demanded bribe of Rs.1 Crore 20 lakh for

tender and thereafter for smooth clearance of bills in respect of

company of the complainant and another company M/s.Delicia

Chemicals. On the instructions of petitioner/accused No.1, the

complainant has contacted accused No.2 and accused No.2 has

placed demand of bribe on behalf of accused No.1. Accused No.2

was trapped while receiving Rs.40 lakh bribe. Therefore, it cannot

be believed that the accused No.1 is not working through his son

accused No.2. Petitioner /accused No.1 is having high status in the

society and he is highly influential and without his interference,

tender process of KSDL is difficult. Therefore, for awarding of

tender and for smooth clearance of future bills, the accused has

demanded bribe and thereby committed offences under the

Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner is member of

Legislative Assembly and highly influential and therefore, there

 7 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

are every chance of he tampering evidence and hampering

investigation of the case and on these grounds, the prosecution

prayed for rejection of the petition filed by the accused/petitioner.

4. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:

1) Whether the I.O. has not complied the

provisions of Sec.41 of the Cr.P.C.?

2) Whether the petitioner/ accused No.1 is

entitled for bail?

3) What order?

5. After hearing the argument of both the parties and on

considering the relevant materials on record, my findings on the

above points are as hereunder:

Point No.1 : In the Negative

Point No.2 : In the Affirmative

Point No.3 : As per final order for the

following:

REASONS

6. Point No.1: This petition is filed by accused No.1 Sri

K.Madal Virupakshappa on 31.03.2023 for grant of regular bail.

After issuance of notice, this court posted the case for filing
 8 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

objections by the respondent and on 06.04.2023, the learned

Special Public Prosecutor filed objections to the petition.

Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed his

argument on 10.04.2023.

7. It is pertinent to note that in the grounds urged in the

petition seeking bail, the learned counsel for accused has taken

contention that the prosecution has not complied Sec.41 of Cr.P.C.,

and therefore, the accused is entitled for bail.

8. The learned counsel for accused has cited the

following decisions and the gist of the decisions reads hereunder.

1. “Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another”

reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as hereunder:

“7. As the offence with which we are concerned in

the present appeal, provides for a maximum
punishment of imprisonment which may extend to
seven years and fine, Section 41(1)(b), Cr.PC which
is relevant for the purpose reads as follows:

“41. When police may arrest without

warrant.-(1) Any police officer may without
an order from a Magistrate and without a
warrant, arrest any person –
(a) x x x x x x
(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has
been made, or credible information has been
 9 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that

he has committed a cognizable offence
punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may be less than seven years or which
may extend to seven years whether with or
without fine, if the following conditions are
satisfied, namely :-
(i) x x x x x
(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such
arrest is necessary – (a) to prevent such
person from committing any further offence;
or (b) for proper investigation of the offence;
or (c) to prevent such person from causing the
evidence of the offence to disappear or
tampering with such evidence in any manner;
or (d) to prevent such person from making
any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts
to the Court or to the police officer; or (e) as
unless such person is arrested, his presence in
the Court whenever required cannot be
ensured, and the police officer shall record
while making such arrest, his reasons in
writing:
Provided that a police officer shall, in all
cases where the arrest of a person is not
required under the provisions of this sub-
section, record the reasons in writing for not
making the arrest.”
7.1 From a plain reading of the aforesaid
provision, it is evident that a person accused of
offence punishable with imprisonment for a term
 10 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

which may be less than seven years or which may

extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be
arrested by the police officer only on its satisfaction
that such person had committed the offence
punishable as aforesaid. Police officer before arrest,
in such cases has to be further satisfied that such
arrest is necessary to prevent such person from
committing any further offence; or for proper
investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused
from causing the evidence of the offence to
disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any
manner; or to prevent such person from making any
inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or the police officer; or unless such accused person is
arrested, his presence in the court whenever required
cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which
one may reach based on facts.
7.2. The law mandates the police officer to
state the facts and record the reasons in writing
which led him to come to a conclusion covered by
any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such
arrest. Law further requires the police officers to
record the reasons in writing for not making the
arrest.”

2. “Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI and Another”

reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as hereunder:

“23.Section 41 under Chapter V of the Code deals

with the arrest of persons. Even for a cognizable
offense, an arrest is not mandatory as can be seen
from the mandate of this provision. If the officer is
satisfied that a person has committed a cognizable
 11 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

offense, punishable with imprisonment for a term

which may be less than seven years, or which may
extend to the said period, with or without fine, an
arrest could only follow when he is satisfied that
there is a reason to believe or suspect, that the said
person has committed an offense, and there is a
necessity for an arrest. Such necessity is drawn to
prevent the committing of any further offense, for a
proper investigation, and to prevent him/her from
either disappearing or tampering with the evidence.
He/she can also be arrested to prevent such person
from making any inducement, threat, or promise to
any person according to the facts, so as to dissuade
him from disclosing said facts either to the court or
to the police officer. One more ground on which an
arrest may be necessary is when his/her presence is
required after arrest for production before the Court
and the same cannot be assured.
24. This provision mandates the police officer to
record his reasons in writing while making the arrest.
Thus, a police officer is duty-bound to record the
reasons for arrest in writing. Similarly, the police
officer shall record reasons when he/she chooses not
to arrest. There is no requirement of the aforesaid
procedure when the offense alleged is more than
seven years, among other reasons.
25. The consequence of non-compliance with Section
41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person
suspected of the offense. Resultantly, while
considering the application for enlargement on bail,
courts will have to satisfy themselves on the due
compliance of this provision. Any non-compliance
would entitle the accused to a grant of bail.
 12 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

3. In the case of “Mahantesh S/o Devindrappa Patil

Vs. State of Karnataka” in Crl.P.No.201224/2022
c/w Crl.P. No.201396/2022 decided on 15.12.2022,
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as
hereunder:-

“14. As per Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. a police officer

shall record his reasons in writing while making a
arrest. In Arnesh Kumar (Supra) at Para No.10, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasised that the practice
of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or
most of the reasons contained in Section 41 of
Cr.P.C. for effecting arrest be discouraged and
discontinued and certain directions are given to
ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused
unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize
detention casually and mechanically and it is made
clear that the said directions shall apply not only to
the accused under Section 498-A of IPC or Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but also in such cases
where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may be less than 07 years or which may
extend to 07 years, whether with or without fine. One
of the directions issued is that all the police officer be
provided with a check-list containing specified sub-
clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii).”

4. “Sunita Devi and Another Vs. State of Haryana”

 13 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

reported in (2023) 1 SCC 178, wherein the Hon'ble

Apex Court has held as hereunder:
“Instant order is being passed having regard to the
fact that the appellants have joined investigation and
at present stage, there is no allegation as regards their
participation in investigation – In the event
appellants refuse to co-operate with investigating
agency at any subsequent stage, it shall be open to
State to apply for cancellation of bail before trial
Court – Penal Code, 1860, 420 and 406.

9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied on the

decision in the case of “Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI”

reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has

held as hereunder:

“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart

and need to be visited with a different approach in the
matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds
needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave
offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole
and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of
the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in

mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
 14 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

conviction will entail, the character of the accused,

circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public/State and other similar considerations.”

10. I have gone through the said decisions. Learned

counsel for accused has argued that Sec.41 of Cr.P.C., is

mandatory provision and in view of the decisions of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and in the case

of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI and another, the accused is

entitled for bail. The learned counsel for accused has argued that

the offences alleged against the accused is punishable under

Sec.7(a) and (b), 8, 9, 10 and 12 of P.C.Act and the punishment

prescribed for the said offences are with imprisonment for a term

which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to

seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Relying on the decision

of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, learned counsel for accused

has argued that when the accused is produced before the

Magistrate, the police officer effecting the arrest, required to

furnish to the Magistrate, the facts, reasons and its conclusions for

the arrest and the Magistrate in turn is to be satisfied with the

 15 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

condition precedent for arrest under Sec.41 of Cr.P.C., has been

satisfied and it is only thereafter, that he will authorize the

detention of an accused.

11. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, he argued that the Hon'ble

Apex Court has categorized the types of offences as ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’,

and ‘D’ and the offence punishable under Sec.7(a) and (b), 7A and

12 of P.C.Act, comes under Category (A), as the offence

punishable with imprisonment of 07 years or less and not falling

under the categories (B) and (D). He further argued that in the said

decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the police officer before

arrest must put a question to himself, Why arrest? Is it really

required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve?

12. I have gone through the decisions cited by the learned

counsel for accused. A plain reading of Section 41 of Cr.P.C., and

going through the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that

a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a

term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to

seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police

officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the
 16 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in

such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary

to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for

proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from

causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with

such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from

making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police

officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in

the court whenever required cannot be ensured. In the said

decision, it is further stated that the law mandates the police officer

to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to

come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions of Sec.41 of

Cr.P.C., while making such arrest and the law further requires the

police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the

arrest. It is further stated that all police officers be provided with a

check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)

(ii) of Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Apex Court also held that there is no

requirement of aforesaid procedure when the offence alleged is

punishable with more than 7 years, among other reasons.

 17 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

13. Now it is the case of the prosecution that in the month

of January-2023, KSDL had invited tenders for supply of chemical

oils and the Company of the complainant i.e., M/s.Chemixil

Corporation and M/s.Delicia Chemicals had participated in the

said tender and 30% of the amount had to be given towards the

acceptance of tender and issuance of the purchase order and

clearance of the bills. It is further alleged that in order to get the

tender allotted in favour of the complainant’s company and M/s.

Delicia Chemicals and to sanction the bills towards the supply of

chemicals without any hastle, the complainant met the accused

No.1, the then Chairman of KSDL and the accused No.1 asked the

complainant to approach accused No.2, who is his son and

presently working as Chief Accounts Officer, BWSSB. It is further

alleged that on 12.1.2023 at about 5.30 p.m., the complainant and

T.A.S. Murthy, Director of M/s.Delicia Chemicals, went to the

office of accused No.2 situated at Crescent Road, Sheshadripuram

and as per the instruction of accused No.2, the complainant went

alone and met accused No.2 in his chamber and the complainant

had discussed about the tender and accused No.2 told him that the

tender will be allotted in his favour and without any hastle the bill

towards supply of chemicals will be cleared.

 18 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

14. It is further alleged that accused No.2 has demanded a

sum of Rs.60 lakhs each from two companies and totally a sum of

Rs.1.20 Crore demanded and upon request made by the

complainant, the accused No.2 had reduced the amount to Rs.33

lakhs from M/s.Chemixil Corporation and Rs.48 lakhs from

M/s.Delicia Chemicals Company, in total Rs.81 lakhs. It is alleged

in the case that, it was agreed that the said amount has to be given

when the purchase order was issued in favour of complainant’s

Company and to M/s.Delicia Chemicals towards supply of

chemicals of 5100 kg of Guiac wood oil at the rate of Rs.850/- per

K.G. by the complainant’s company and 29520 Kgs of abbalide /

musk-50 at the rate of Rs.4349/- per kg by M/s.Delicia Chemicals

and both the suppliers had agreed to give commission amount. It is

further alleged that the accused No.2 got the tender allotted in his

favour and accordingly on 28.01.2023 and 30.01.2023, the

purchase orders were issued in favour of M/s.Delicia Chemicals

and complainant’s company. On 08.02.2023 at about 11.30 a.m.,

accused No.2 had made a whatsapp call from his mobile

No.9008339336 to complainant’s mobile No.9886324494 and

informed him to come to his office at 5.00 p.m. which is situated at

Sheshadripuram, so as to discuss about the bribe amount.

 19 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

15. It is alleged that the complainant went to the office of

accused No.2 at 5.30 p.m. and at that time, when the complainant

was discussing about some other tender related matter, the accused

No.2 had demanded the complainant to give the amount of Rs.81

lakhs towards the allotment of tender and towards clearance of

bills towards the supply of the chemicals. It is alleged that the

complainant had informed the accused No.2 that within two days

he will give the amount. It is alleged that the complainant had

recorded the said conversation in his Techno View Smart Watch. It

is further alleged that since the complainant had to go to Calcutta

for business purpose, he was unable to meet accused No.2 and the

accused No.2 had called him through whatsapp call and demanded

money and the complainant had informed the accused No.2 that he

would come back to Benglauru and will give the amount.

16. It is alleged that on 01.03.2023 at about 12.00 p.m.,

the accused No.2 had again called the complainant and told him to

meet at his office on 02.03.2023 at 5.30 p.m. and accused No.2 had

demanded money on behalf of accused No.1 and since the

complainant did not want to pay any bribe amount, he had decided

to approach the Police. It is further alleged that the Lokayukta

 20 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

police had initiated trap proceedings and accordingly trap mahazar

was drawn on 02.03.2023 and during the trap proceedings, certain

other persons who were present in the private office of accused

No.2 were also enquired and amount that were with them were

also seized and thereafter, they were taken in to custody and the

accused No.2 to 6 were produced before this court on 03.03.2023

and they were remanded to judicial custody.

17. The present petition is filed for regular bail. It is

pertinent to note that on 02.03.2023, the police have trapped the

accused No.2 while receiving bribe amount of Rs.40 lakhs from

complainant and they have also recovered Rs.1.62 Crore from

accused No.2 to 6. It is true that the offence under Sec.7(a) and (b),

7A and Sec.12 of P.C.Act is punishable with imprisonment for a

term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend

to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. The punishment is

not prescribed less than 7 years and minimum punishment

prescribed is 3 years. Another important aspect is that the offences

under the P.C. Act are economic offences. It is alleged that the

accused No.1 did not co-operate with the police, even this Court

handed over to police on police custody. During the course of

 21 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

investigation, the police have secured one Dr.Mahesh.M,

Managing Director of KSDL and said Dr.Mahesh.M. gave

statement before XXXVI ACMM, Bengaluru on 16.3.2023 under

Sec.164(5) of Cr.P.C., and he stated before the Magistrate that

there were frequent instructions given by the accused No.1 to

accused No.2 in tender process of KSDL and at the instruction of

accused No.1, the tender has been finalized and accused No.2 has

actively given all the instructions to the complainant on behalf of

accused No.1 and there were whatsapp messages and telephone

instructions given by accused No.1 through accused No.2. This

prima facie shows that the accused No.2 has almost interfered with

the tender process of KSDL for the procurement of chemicals.

Therefore, this is not a simple case of trap.

18. Therefore, this is a serious offence and accused No.2

being a public servant allegedly making deals by sitting in the

office of M/s.Unisquare Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd., 1st

Floor, M.Studio Building, Crescent Road, Sheshadripuram,

Bengaluru and therefore, these offences comes under the category

of (A) and (D), stated in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

in“Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI and another”. Therefore, I am

 22 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

of the opinion that the alleged offence does not come under the

purview of Sec.41 of Cr.P.C. Even if the present case is considered

that it comes under the purview of Sec.41(1) of Cr.P.C., the

Investigation Officer has not violated the provision. Further, in the

present case arrest of accused No.1 was effected following the

rejection of anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble High Court of

Karnataka. At the time of arrest of accused No.1, the Investigation

Officer has prepared arrest intimation and stated that he has

arrested the accused No.1 following the rejection of anticipatory

bail petition by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and arrest is

necessary for interrogation.

19. Further, while producing the accused before the Court

seeking police custody, the Investigation Officer has given 11

reasons in the remand application and among those reasons, it is

stated that the accused No.1 is required to investigate regarding the

tender process conducted during the tenure of accused No.1 as

Chairman of KSDL and amount received by accused No.1 through

his son accused No.2 from tenderer and to collect information

regarding phone contacts made by the accused No.1, with the help

of mirror image of phone data, inquire regarding the amount

 23 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

brought by companies during the time of trap, money transaction

made through M/s. Leelavathi Limited and Liabilities and Sri

Kanakagiri Mallikarjuna Steels and Stones Pvt Ltd., and to get

explanation from accused regarding documents collected during

raid, inquire regarding collection of commission amount from

tenderers. So these grounds are mentioned in Sec.41 of Cr.P.C.,

and this court after satisfying the grounds urged in the remand

application and looking to the gravity of the offence alleged

against the accused, remanded the accused No.1 to the police

custody. Therefore, the Investigation Officer has complied the

conditions of Sec.41 of Cr.P.C., even though he has not filed

check-list. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Investigation

Officer has not violated Sec.41 of Cr.P.C., and accordingly, I

answer point No.1 in the Negative.

20. Points No.2:- Learned Senior Counsel appearing for

accused has vehemently argued that the police have recovered

Rs.6,10,30,000/ from the house bearing No.39, KMV Mansion, 6 th

Main Road, A.E.C.S. Layout, 1st Stage, Sanjayanagara, Bengaluru.

He further argued that the police have not seized any amount from

the hands of accused No.1. He further argued that the said house
 24 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

belongs to M/s. Kanakagiri Mallikarjuna Steels and Stones Private

Limited, the said house does not belong either to accused No.1 or

accused No.2 and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the

allegation that the amount seized by the police belongs to accused

No.1 and it is tainted money. In support of his arguments, he has

produced the Certificate of Incorporation of M/s.Kanakagiri

Mallikarjuna Steels and Stones Private Limited. He has also

produced two sale deeds dated 09.10.2015 executed by

M/s.Creative Homes Pvt Ltd., represented by its Managing

Director Sri K.Venkateshwar Reddy in favour of M/s.Kanakagiri

Mallikarjuna Steels and Stones Private Limited., pertaining to (1)

house property bearing No.38, katha No.295, Geddalahalli village,

old Muncipal No.38/19, New No.19, PID No.100-365-19, situated

at 1st Cross, Muniramappa Garden, Geddalahalli (Sanjaynagar),

BBMP Ward No.100 (2) house property bearing No.39, katha

No.295, Geddalahalli village, old Muncipal No.39/20, New No.20,

PID No.100-365-20, situated at 1st Cross, Muniramappa Garden,

Geddalahalli (Sanjaynagar), BBMP Ward No.100. Therefore, he

argued that the accused No.1 has no relation with the said house

and the money does not belongs to him and the accused No.1 was

not present when the amount was seized. I have gone through the
 25 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

certificate of incorporation and contents of the two sale deeds. As

per these sale deeds, the properties were purchased by

M/s.Kanakagiri Mallikarjuna Steels and Stones Private Limited.,

represented by Sri M.V.Mallikarjuna S/o Sri K.Madal

Virupakshappa.

21. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has argued that Sri

M.V.Mallikarjuna is the son of Sri K.Madal Virupakshappa. Said

Sri K.Madal Virupakshappa is the accused No.1.

22. Learned counsel for accused No.1 further argued that

the accused No.1 is permanent resident of Channeshpura village,

Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere and he is staying in Room No.119

of Shashakara Bhavana (Legislators Home) Bengaluru, whenever

he comes to Bengaluru. Therefore, question of occupying the room

in the alleged house does not arise.

23. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the

following decisions.

1. “Moti Ram and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh”

reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as hereunder:
“The consequences of pre-trial detention are grave.
Defendants presumed innocent are subjected to the
 26 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

psychological and physical deprivations of jail life,

usually under more onerous conditions than are
imposed on convicted defendants. The jailed
defendant loses his job is he has one and is prevented
from contributing to the preparation of his defence.
Equally important, the burden of his detention
frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of
his family.”

2. “Bhagirathsinh S/o Mahipat Singh Judeja Vs. State of

Gujarat” reported in (1984) 1 SCC 284, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereunder:
“Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the
bail. And the trend today is towards granting bail
because it is now well-settled by a catena of
decisions of this Court that the power to grant bail is
not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is
being imposed. The only material considerations in
such a situation are whether the accused would be
readily available for his trial and whether he is likely
to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by
tampering with evidence. The order made by the
High Court is conspicuous by its silence on these two
relevant considerations. It is for these reasons that we
consider in the interest of justice a compelling
necessity to interfere with the order made by the
High Court.”
 27 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

3. “Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others”

reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as hereunder:
“20. In India, Third Report of the National Police
Commission at p.32 also suggested:
"An arrest during the investigation of a cognizable
case may be considered justified in one or other of
the following circumstances:
(i) The case involves a grave offence like murder,
dacoity, robbery, rape etc., and it is necessary to
arrest the accused and bring his movements under
restraint to infuse confidence among the terror
stricken victims.
(ii) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the
processes of law.
(iii) The accused is given to violent behavior and
is likely to commit further offences unless his
movements are brought under restraint.
(iv) The accused is a habitual offender and unless
kept in custody he is likely to commit similar
offences again.
It would be desirable to insist through
departmental instructions that a police officer making
an arrest should also record in the case diary the
reasons for making the arrest, thereby clarifying his
conformity to the specified guidelines......"
4. “Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI” reported in (2012) 1 SCC
 28 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

40 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as

hereunder:

“In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down

from the earliest times that the object of bail is to
secure the appearance of the accused person at his
trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail
is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of
liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is
required to ensure that an accused person will stand
his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than
verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins
after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be
innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
From the earliest times, it was appreciated that
detention in custody pending completion of trial
could be a cause of great hardship. From time to
time, necessity demands that some un-convicted
persons should be held in custody pending trial to
secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases,
`necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it
would be quite contrary to the concept of personal
liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person
should be punished in respect of any matter, upon
which, he has not been convicted or that in any
circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty
upon only the belief that he will tamper with the
witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most
 29 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

extraordinary circumstances.
Apart from the question of prevention being the
object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of
the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has
a substantial punitive content and it would be
improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of
disapproval of former conduct whether the accused
has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an
un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a
taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
In the instant case, as we have already noticed that
the "pointing finger of accusation" against the
appellants is `the seriousness of the charge'. The
offences alleged are economic offences which have
resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they
contend that there is possibility of the appellants
tampering witnesses, they have not placed any
material in support of the allegation. In our view,
seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the
relevant considerations while considering bail
applications but that is not the only test or the factor :
The other factor that also requires to be taken note of
is the punishment that could be imposed after trial
and conviction, both under the Indian Penal Code
and Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the
former is the only test, we would not be balancing
the Constitutional Rights but rather "recalibrating the
 30 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

scales of justice."
5. “Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra
and another” reported in (2014) 16 SCC 623, wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereunder:
“A Judge is expected to perform his onerous calling
impervious of any public pressure that may be
brought to bear on him.”
6. “Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another” reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereunder:
“The historical background of the provision for bail
has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent
decision delivered in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v.
Union of India going back to the days of the Magna
Carta. In that decision, reference was made to
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab in which it
is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v.
King-Emperor that bail is not to be withheld as a
punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v.
Hutchinson wherein it was observed that grant of bail
is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision
for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal
interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a
century old, going back to colonial days.

However, we should not be understood to mean that

bail should be granted in every case. The grant or
refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the
 31 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is

unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a
humane manner and compassionately. Also,
conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so
strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby
making the grant of bail illusory.”
7. “P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement”
reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791, wherein Hon'ble Apex
Court held as hereunder:
“Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments
cited on either side including the one rendered by the
Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced
that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains
the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and
refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the
accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
However, while considering the same the gravity of
the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept
in view by the Court. The gravity for the said
purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and
circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view
the consequences that would befall on the society in
cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that
even economic offences would fall under the
category of “grave offence” and in such circumstance
while considering the application for bail in such
matters, the Court will have to deal with the same,
being sensitive to the nature of allegation made
 32 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

against the accused. One of the circumstances to

consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of
sentence that is prescribed for the offence the
accused is alleged to have committed. Such
consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is
a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the
tripod test that would be normally applied. In that
regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that
even if the allegation is one of grave economic
offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in
every case since there is no such bar created in the
relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does
the bail jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the
underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the
nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another
case alone will not be the basis for either grant or
refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on
principle. But ultimately the consideration will have
to be on case to case basis on the facts involved
therein and securing the presence of the accused to
stand trial.”
8. “Arnab Manoranjan Goswamy Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others” reported in (2021) 2 SCC
427 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as
hereunder:
“More than four decades ago, in a celebrated judgment in
State of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand, Justice
Krishna Iyer pithily reminded us that the basic rule
 33 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

of our criminal justice system is “bail, not jail”. The

High Courts and Courts in the district judiciary of
India must enforce this principle in practice, and not
forego that duty, leaving this Court to intervene at all
times. We must in particular also emphasise the role
of the district judiciary, which provides the first point
of interface to the citizen. Our district judiciary is
wrongly referred to as the subordinate judiciary. It
may be subordinate in hierarchy but it is not
subordinate in terms of its importance in the lives of
citizens or in terms of the duty to render justice to
them. High Courts get burdened when courts of first
instance decline to grant anticipatory bail or bail in
deserving cases. This continues in the Supreme Court
as well, when High Courts do not grant bail or
anticipatory bail in cases falling within the
parameters of the law. The consequence for those
who suffer incarceration are serious. Common
citizens without the means or resources to move the
High Courts or this Court languish as under trials.
Courts must be alive to the situation as it prevails on
the ground – in the jails and police stations where
human dignity has no protector. As judges, we would
do well to remind ourselves that it is through the
instrumentality of bail that our criminal justice
system‘s primordial interest in preserving the
presumption of innocence finds its most eloquent
expression. The remedy of bail is the “solemn
 34 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

expression of the humaneness of the justice system.”

Tasked as we are with the primary responsibility of
preserving the liberty of all citizens, we cannot
countenance an approach that has the consequence of
applying this basic rule in an inverted form. We have
given expression to our anguish in a case where a
citizen has approached this court. We have done so in
order to reiterate principles which must govern
countless other faces whose voices should not go
unheard.

And hence, prayed for granting bail to the petitioner /

accused No.1.

24. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently

argued that the petitioner/ accused No.1 has involved in the

offence of receiving bribe, to pass the bill of complainant and he is

public servant and the statement given by Dr.Mahesh.M.,

Managing Director of KSDL, clearly discloses the involvement

accused No.1 and interference of accused No.2 in the tender

process of KSDL and the investigation is in progress and the

police have to record the statement of witnesses of KSDL and the

investigation has to be conducted as to whether the accused No.1

has received bribe money from other companies while accepting

the tender and if the bail is granted, he may abscond, he may

 35 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

tamper the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the bail

application filed by the petitioner/ accused No.1 may be dismissed.

In support of his arguments, he has relied on the following

decisions:

1. “Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari

and Another” reported in (2019) 9 SCC 165, wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereunder:

“At this juncture, it must be noted that even as per

Section 212(7) of the Companies Act, the limitation
under Section 212(6) with respect to grant of bail is
in addition to those already provided in the Cr.P.C.
Thus, it is necessary to advert to the principles
governing the grant of bail under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. Specifically, heed must be paid to the
stringent view taken by this Court towards grant of
bail with respect of economic offences. In this
regard, it is pertinent to refer to the following
observations of this Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy:

“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and

need to be visited with a different approach in the
matter of bail. The economic offences having deep
rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public
funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as
grave offences affecting the economy of the country
 36 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the

financial health of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind

the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of
the public/State and other similar considerations.”
This Court has adopted this position in several
decisions, including Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of
Enforcement and State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar.
Thus, it is evident that the above factors must be
taken into account while determining whether bail
should be granted in cases involving grave economic
offences.”
2. “Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)”
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724, wherein
Hon'ble Apex Court held as hereunder:

“What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is

summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by
the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish
the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections
 37 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.

(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,

the prosecution has to first prove the demand of
illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as
a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved
either by direct evidence which can be in the nature
of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of

demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can
also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the
absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the

demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the
public servant, the following aspects have to be
borne in mind:

(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver

without there being any demand from the public
servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and
receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of
acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a
case, there need not be a prior demand by the
public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes
a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand
and tenders the demanded gratification which in
turn is received by the public servant, it is a case
 38 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior

demand for illegal gratification emanates from the
public servant. This is an offence under Section
13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer
by the bribe giver and the demand by the public
servant respectively have to be proved by the
prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words,
mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal
gratification without anything more would not
make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13
(1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to
bring home the offence, there must be an offer
which emanates from the bribe giver which is
accepted by the public servant which would make
it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the
public servant when accepted by the bribe giver
and in turn there is a payment made which is
received by the public servant, would be an
offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and
(i) and (ii) of the Act.

(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the

demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal
gratification may be made by a court of law by way
of an inference only when the foundational facts
have been proved by relevant oral and documentary
 39 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis

of the material on record, the Court has the discretion
to raise a presumption of fact while considering
whether the fact of demand has been proved by the
prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact
is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the
absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has
died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during
trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by
letting in the evidence of any other witness who can
again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary
evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by
circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor
does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused
public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on
the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates
the court to raise a presumption that the illegal
gratification was for the purpose of a motive or
reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said
presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal
presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the
said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section
20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d)(i) and (ii) of
the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under
 40 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of

fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a
mandatory presumption while the latter is
discretionary in nature.”
3. “Syed Ahmed Vs. State of Karnataka” reported in
(2012) 8 SCC 527, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held as hereunder:
“We agree with the High Court that in view of
Explanation (d) to Section 7 of the Act, the issue
whether Syed Ahmed could or could not deliver
results (as it were) becomes irrelevant in view of the
acceptance of the testimony of Nagaraja (PW1) and
Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2).”

4. “Ranganath Vs. State of Karnataka” reported in 2015

SCC OnLine Kar 9181.
“The existence of any official work for demand of
bribe is not a sine-quo-non to attract the provisions
of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act of Section 7, if it is read with
explanation, it gives an indication that even a public
servant accepts or agrees to accept any gratification
other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward
for doing or for bearing to do any official act or for
showing or for bearing to show in the exercise of his
official functions, is said to commit such an offence.”
 41 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

25. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has further

invited the attention of this court regarding the seizure mahazar

conducted on 2.3.2023 in House No.39, KMV Mansion, 6 th Main

road, A.E.C.S. Layout, 1st Stage, Sanjayanagara, Bengaluru and

relying on this seizure mahazar, he argued that the contents of the

said mahazar is very clear that at the time of conducting raid in the

said house, Smt.Brunda B.T. W/o Prashanth Kumar M.V., and his

son Pruthvi, 10 years and daughter Chethana, aged 2 years and

wife of brother of Prashanth Kumar by name Smt.Soumya w/o

Praveen Kumar and her daughter Jahnavi aged 14 years, son

Gaurav aged 9 years and son of Mallikarjuna M.V. by name

Jagruth, aged 10 years and maid Rachamma, Vittal, and Somu

were present and Praveen Kumar M.V. told them that the room

wherein the amount was seized being used by Madal

Virupakshappa. He argued that the I.O. has also recorded the

statement of Vittal Patil, who is working as driver of Madal

Virupakshappa and he told that the accused No.1 is residing in the

said house. It is further argued that they found the amount

Rs.6,10,30,000/- in the cupboard and godrej lockers and they also

found currency counting machine in the said room and it is further

noted in the mahazar that the family members, Praveen Kumar,

 42 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

Smt.Soumya, Smt.Brunda, did not give any explanation regarding

the amount of Rs.6,10,30,000/- found in the room.

26. I have gone through the copies of case diary. I.O. has

recorded statements of Assistant General Manager Sri Nagaraj and

Chidananad, Umashankar of KSDL and also recorded the

statements of staff of KSDL. But so far, there is no break through

in the case regarding the source of amount of Rs.6,10,30,000/-

seized from the house situated at Sanjayanagara, Bengaluru and no

explanation is given by Sri M.V.Mallikarjuna, the Director of

M/s.Kanakagiri Mallikarjuna Steels and Stones Private Limited.,

to establish the source of amount of Rs.6,10,30,000/- seized from

his house situated at Sanjayanagara, Bengaluru.

27. It is for the I.O. to investigate regarding the source of

money Rs.6,10,30,000/- seized from the house situated at

Sanjayanagara, Bengaluru. It is pertinent to note that accused No.1

was not arrested while receiving the bribe and he was not trapped

and he was arrested pursuant to the rejection of anticipatory bail

petition by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and he was

arrested on 27.03.2023 and produced before this Court on

28.03.2023 and he was handed over to police custody for five days
 43 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

till 01.04.2023 and then he was remanded to judicial custody and

since then he is in judicial custody. Another important aspect is

that the accused No.1 is aged 74 years and the medical report i.e.,

discharge summary produced by the accused No.1 show the

following diagnosis.

“Ischemic heart disease – unstable

angina.

Sinus rhythm, preserved LV systolic

function EF60%

Coronary angiogram (1.6.2022) –

Double vessel coronary artery disease

LMCA: Short, normal

LAD: Proximal to Mid – Diffuse disease

maximum of 90% stenosis

LCX-Proximal – Mild disease 20-30%

stenosis, Major OM – 50% stenosis

RCA: Proximal – Mild disease

Complex PTCA + stenting to LAD (Mid

2.5 X 38 m Xience Xpedition stent overlapped
to proximal with 3.0 X 38 mm Xience
Xepedition stent)

Hypertension

Grade II Hemorrhoids

Multiple Gastric polyps, few duodenal

erosion.”
 44 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

28. Therefore, the petitioner is having heart disease and

he is aged person.

29. It is pertinent to note that proviso to Sec.437 of

Cr.P.C., says that the Court may direct that a person referred to in

clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under

the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm. So

considering the age of petitioner/ accused No.1 and the disease,

which he is suffering, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper

to release him on bail. The contention of the prosecution that, if the

accused is released on bail, he may abscond, he may tamper the

prosecution witnesses and he may hamper the investigation and he

has not co-operated during police custody for fair investigation,

etc., could be met with by imposing stringent conditions. I have

gone through the bail petition, wherein the petitioner has

undertaken to co-operate and assist in fair investigation and trial of

the case. The police alleged that he has not co-operated during

investigation. But on this ground alone, his bail application cannot

be rejected, as the police have not seized any amount from his

hand and he was not trapped and the allegation of the prosecution

that the accused No.2 has received bribe of Rs.40 lakhs at the
 45 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

instruction of accused No.1. The prosecution has also produced the

statement of Dr.Mahesh.M. Managing Director of KSDL, which

prima facie shows the involvement of accused No.1 and

interference of accused No.2 in the tender process of KSDL. In

spite of that, keeping the accused No.1 in the custody for a long

period, no purpose would be served to the prosecution and it is for

the prosecution to investigate the source of amount of

Rs.6,10,30,000/-. Therefore, by imposing stringent conditions, the

petitioner may be released on bail. With these observations, I

answer point No.2 in the Affirmative.

30. Point No.3: In view of the discussions made herein

above, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER
Petition filed by the petitioner / accused No.1 Sri
K.Madal Virupakshappa under Sec.439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.1 Sri K.Madal Virupakshappa
is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing personal
bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only)
with two sureties for the like-sum subject to the following
conditions:-
1. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall mark his
attendance before the concerned Lokayukta Police
Station once in three weeks preferably on Sunday
 46 Crl.Misc No.3063 / 2023

between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till completion of

the investigation.
2. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall appear before the
Investigating Officer of Lokayukta as and when
directed.
3. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not threaten or
allure the prosecution witnesses.
4. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not leave the
jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission
and the petitioner/accused No.1 Sri K.Madal
Virupakshappa shall surrender his passport, if any, to
the Investigating Officer till further orders.
5. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not visit the
factory and premises of Karnataka Soaps and
Detergents Limited, Bengaluru, till investigation is
over.
It is made clear that, breach of any conditions by the
petitioner/ accused No.1, would entail cancellation of
bail. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in W.P.No.8524/2019 dated 23.09.2022
while offering sureties.

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by

him, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open
Court on this the 15th day of April, 2023)

(B. Jayantha Kumar)

LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases
related to elected former and sitting MPs/MLAs
in the State of Karnataka)

B Digitally signed by B
JAYANTHA KUMAR
JAYANTHA Date: 2023.04.15
KUMAR 14:07:37 +0530