Manjunath V K vs. State By Lokayukta Police

Facts

The petitioner, Manjunath V.K., a Commercial Tax Officer, is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 2/2024 registered by the Tumakuru Lokayukta Police for an offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant, a distributor for Pepsico, alleged that the petitioner visited his godown on December 26, 2023, checked stocks, and issued a notice to pay Rs. 7,00,000/- towards GST. The petitioner allegedly demanded Rs. 50,000/- as illegal gratification to reduce this amount. Subsequently, on February 12, 2024, the petitioner allegedly demanded Rs. 40,000/- for non-production of documents and a penalty of Rs. 45,713/-. A trap was laid on March 12, 2024, where the petitioner was apprehended while demanding and accepting Rs. 40,000/-, which was recovered from his custody. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. His bail petition was rejected by the Special Judge.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and directed the enlargement of the petitioner on bail. The Court acknowledged that the trap was successful and the tainted amount was recovered from the petitioner's custody, raising a presumption in favour of the prosecution under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the Court noted that the petitioner is a public servant, and the major portion of the investigation is completed, with only the FSL report and sanction for prosecution pending. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's presence is no longer required by the investigating agency and his continued detention is unwarranted. The Court found no impediment to admitting the petitioner on regular bail, subject to stringent conditions to address the apprehensions of the prosecution. The ratio decidendi is that even in cases involving a successful trap and recovery, a public servant accused of corruption may be granted bail if the investigation is substantially complete, their presence is not required, and their continued detention is deemed unnecessary, provided adequate conditions are imposed to ensure their cooperation with the trial and prevent tampering with evidence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, a public servant accused of demanding and accepting a bribe under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is entitled to regular bail, considering the successful trap and recovery of tainted amount? The petitioner argued that the investigation is substantially complete, and his presence is no longer required by the investigating agency. He contended that his detention is unwarranted and that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, needs to be rebutted during the trial. The petitioner also highlighted that he is a public servant and thus unlikely to abscond. The respondent, State by Lokayukta Police, argued that the allegations disclose a demand and acceptance of bribe, and the trap was successful with the recovery of the tainted amount. They emphasized the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in favour of the prosecution.