C T RAVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri.Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.T.M.Gayathri, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Lokayuktha and Sri.K.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in respect of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(2.) AT the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court by its order dated 29.06.2012 had granted temporary anticipatory bail for a period of one week subject to certain conditions and now the petitioner seeks confirmation of the said temporary order of anticipatory bail and in this connection, submission made is that in respect of the petitioner against whom and ten others, a private complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent alleging offences under Sections 167, 409, 413, 416, 463, 466, 468, 471, 477(A), 120 & 120-B of IPC and under Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 'B' report has been submitted by the Lokayuktha police. It is contended that the report has given a clean chit to the petitioner in respect of the offence under Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C.Act. Despite the said report, following the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner now apprehends arrest. He being the M.L.A. at the time of filing of this petition and now he is the Minister for Higher Education, it is submitted that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail by making the order passed earlier absolute.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that this Court earlier had granted temporary anticipatory bail to the petitioner for a period of one week and the same came to be extended from time to time. There have been no allegations until now that the petitioner had violated any of the conditions imposed upon him by this court while granting temporary anticipatory bail on 29.06.2012. Secondly, the report filed by the 1st respondent-Lokayuktha also is to the effect that no case is made out to prosecute the petitioner in respect of the offence under Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C.Act. No doubt, the complainant has referred to voluminous documents in support of his complaint. This Court at the stage of considering the bail application is not expected to do a roaming enquiry as if to evaluate the material at this stage. Two of the factors to be taken note of among other factors are tampering with the evidence and likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice.