VASANTHA S. BHAGVATH Vs. STATE BY KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/accused has filed this petition under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on bail in Crime No.9/2022 of Lokayuktha Police Station, Chikkmagaluru registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act,2018) ('PC Act' for short), pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Chikkamagaluru.

(2.) The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the complainant is running Cement and Tiles shop in Basthimatha at Narasimharajapura and on 1/11/2022, his lorry was carrying cement and when it was checked near Menasuru by the Police, it was found having over-load of nearly 15 Tons. According to the prosecution, the accused being the Circle Inspector has assessed the fine amount to the extent of Rs.37,000.00 and after negotiations, he demanded bribe of Rs.15,000.00 and one UPS to the Police Station. Later on, after negotiations, the amount was reduced to Rs.10,000.00 and the complainant has recorded the said conversions in his mobile. Later, on 7/11/2022 night hours at 9.00 p.m., the complainant went to Lokayuktha Police Station and lodged a complaint in this regard. On the basis of the said complaint, the trap was scheduled on the next day.

(3.) On 8/11/2022, a trap was arranged and in Lokayukta Office pre-trap mahazar was drawn in presence of panchas. The complainant was also provided with a voice recorder to record the conversations of demand of bribe. They have approached the petitioner in police station along with a shadow witness and at that time, the petitioner was found sitting in the jeep and the petitioner has demanded and accepted Rs.10,000.00 At that time, the Lokayukta Officers have raided the spot and apprehended the petitioner. It is alleged that his hand-wash was taken which was turned into pink colour and the amount was also recovered from his custody and immediate statement of the petitioner was also recorded. Then a detailed trap mahazar was drawn. But, when the complainant was asked to play the voice recorder, the complainant expressed that he did not switch-on the voice recorder given to him and as such, no conversation was recorded in the voice recorder. Thereafter, the petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge and he was remanded to judicial custody.