1. This petition is filed by accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in Crime No.44/2022 registered by ACB Police, Bangalore for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act').

2. Heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner's counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-ACB.

3. The case of prosecution is that on the complaint of one Azam Pasha, the respondent-ACB police registered a case on 20.05.2022 for the aforesaid offence against one Mahesh and another. It is alleged in the complaint that in the year 2014, the complainant had purchased a land measuring 38 guntas in Sy. No.190/5 situated at Koodlu village, Anekal Taluk from one Nagesh and he has got mutated his name in the mutation register as well as in the RTC. Subsequently, in the year 2018 one Venkataswamy Reddy filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in RA (3)/2018-19 challenging entering the name of the complainant in the mutation register and the same was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner on 24.12.2020. Subsequently, the said Venkataswamy Reddy filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner in RP(16)/20-21 on 15.01.2021. After hearing the arguments, the case was reserved for passing orders on 30.03.2022. Subsequently, on 18.05.2022 at 5.00 p.m., the complainant approached the present petitioner who is the Deputy Commissioner before whom the revision is pending. At 5.30 p.m., the petitioner came out from his chamber and the complainant met him. The petitioner identified the complainant and while both of them were going and accused No.1 Mahesh also accompanied the petitioner and got down to the ground floor and the petitioner said to be boarded his car stating that 'see you tomorrow'. Subsequently, accused No.1, who is the Deputy Tahsildar and said to be working under the petitioner as personal Assistant, took the complainant to his chambers and both of them sat together and accused No.1 shown the file to the complainant and questioned the complainant of what he will do and how much amount the complainant will pay. Accused No.1 also pressurised the complainant to pay the bribe amount for passing the order. Though the complainant was justified that he has purchased the property and all the documents are in his favour, however, accused No.1 said to be holding a white paper and asked for Rs.15 lakhs for passing favourable orders. When the complainant was unable to pay such amount, he bargained upto Rs.8.00 lakhs. Finally, the complainant agreed to pay Rs.3.00 lakhs. But, subsequently, the accused made it as Rs.5.00 lakhs and agreed to receive Rs.5.00 lakhs for passing favourable order and also informed about intimating the officer. Since the complainant was not willing to pay bribe, he recorded the audio and video from his mobile phone and produced before the police and accordingly, the ACB police registered a case and set up a trap. On 21.05.2022, the complainant took Rs.5.00 lakhs in a cover and went to the office of accused No.1 and when he was waiting in front of the chambers of Deputy Commissioner, accused No.1 Mahesh went to the Deputy Commissioner chamber at 2.00 p.m. and one person wearing green shirt (i.e. accused No.2) came near the complainant and requested the complainant to pay the money. Accordingly, the complainant given the money cover to Accused No.2 who is said to be sent by accused No.1. The complainant intimated the police and immediately, they apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 and seized tainted cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs under panchanama and they were remanded to judicial custody. Accused No.2 said to be a private person and is said to be granted bail by the Special Judge and accused No.1 Mahesh was also released on the statutory bail as the police failed to file charge sheet within sixty days. Previously, the bail application of accused No.1 came to be rejected by the Special Court and he approached the High Court for granting regular bail. During the pendency of the bail petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court said to be questioned the ACB for not taking any action against the Deputy Commissioner and it is alleged that thereafter, the ACB arrested the Deputy Commissioner, the present petitioner, on 04.07.2022 and he was remanded to judicial custody. His bail petition came to be rejected by the Special Court and hence, he is before this Court.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated only on the say of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, there is no connection between the petitioner and accused No.1. Absolutely, there is no material placed on record against the petitioner for having committed the offence. There is no demand or acceptance by the petitioner. He is in custody for almost one month. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

5. Per contra, learned Special counsel for the respondent ACB objected the petition and contended that the work is pending with the petitioner who was supposed to pass the order under revision petition. The draft order was kept ready from March 2022 itself, but not pronounced the same and waited for the bribe amount. Accused No.1 is none other than the Personal Assistant of the petitioner who is of the rank of Deputy Tahsildar and he has demanded Rs.15.00 lakhs on behalf of the petitioner and after bargaining, he agreed to receive Rs.5.00 lakhs and has stated that he will intimate to the Saheb (i.e., to the petitioner). The conversation between accused No.1 and complainant is also available on record. The complainant also had conversation with the petitioner and he has identified the complainant as a litigant. Subsequently, accused NO.1 joined with Deputy Commissioner and all of them went down the floor. The petitioner said that he will see the complainant the next day. Accused No.1 took the complainant and bargained for the bribe amount. The same was recorded by the complainant on mobile phone. A chit was also issued by the accused and agreed to receive Rs.5.00 lakhs. Accused NO.2 who is henchman of accused NO.1 came and received the amount and subsequently, accused NOs.1 and 2 were arrested. The cash of Rs.5.00 lakhs was seized from accused No.2. Accused No.1 was released by the trial Court under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. which is a statutory bail for not filing the charge sheet within sixty days and therefore, the ground of parity will not be available to the petitioner. The investigation is still pending. Accused No.1 demanded the amount and received through accused No.2. This petitioner is the authority who is required to pass the order and in spite of the draft order was prepared, it was not signed by him for almost more than 2 months and through accused No.1, demand was made and the demand was accepted by accused No.2 on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, he contended that until completion of investigation, the petitioner is not entitled for bail and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Having heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties, perused the records.

7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a Deputy Commissioner and arraigned as accused No.3 in crime No.44/2022. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR but the averments made in the complaint reveals that the complainant in fact met the petitioner seeking the information about the order to be passed in the revision petition. On 18.5.2022 when the complainant met the petitioner, he along with accused No.1 together went near the car and this petitioner went away stating, 'see you tomorrow'. Subsequently, the complainant and accused No.1 went to the chamber of accused No.1, where accused NO.1 demanded Rs.15.00 lakhs for passing a favourable order on behalf of the complainant and after bargaining, accused No.1 agreed to receive Rs.5.00 lakhs. Therefore, it is a clear case that accused No.1 who is the personal secretary of the present petitioner demanded the bribe for passing the order by the petitioner.

8. It is not in dispute that a draft order has been prepared by the petitioner and kept ready for almost more than 11 /2 months. The present petitioner has not at all signed the order but he has given the order in the hands of the accused No.1, and in turn, accused No.1 has demanded the bribe for passing the order by the petitioner. Ultimately, accused No.1 instigated accused No.2 to receive the bribe amount and the same was received by accused No.2 at the time the trap was held. Of course, accused No.2 has been released on bail by the Special Judge as he was a private person as Prevention of Corruption Act was not applicable to him. Though the bail petition of accused No.1 was rejected by Special Court and when accused No.1 approached this Court, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court said to be questioned as to how the main accused named in the complaint was not at all mentioned in the FIR. Subsequently, the ACB arrested the present petitioner and now the petitioner is in judicial custody.

9. The conversation between the petitioner and complainant has been mentioned in the entrustment panchanama by the police, which reveals that the complainant and the accused were discussing about the case and accused No.1 demanded the bribe amount by mentioning in the paper. The DVD regarding the conversation between accused No.1 and the complainant is also produced by the ACB police. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that normally the order used to be prepared by the Deputy Commissioner and it would be given to the subordinates and thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner will pronounce the order, which reveals that it is the modus operandi of the revenue department for demanding the bribe by keeping the order pending without pronouncing after it was prepared. The investigation is still under progress. The police are yet to recover some more material in this case. There is a prima facie material placed on record by the ACB for having committed the offence and involvement of the petitioner in demanding and acceptance of the bribe by his personal assistant and his henchman. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not involved in the commission of offence and that he has no role to play in the commission of offence.

10. Now a days, the corruption has become rampant in the revenue department from top rank to lower level and without bribe, no file will move in usual course. Getting bribe has become a rule for official duty in the government offices and it is very serious than the cancer. Therefore, knowing fully and without taking any action against the petitioner, the Government has just transferred him to some to other department. The name of the petitioner was not shown in the FIR even though his name was mentioned by the complainant in the first information statement. Therefore, if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of tampering the witnesses and destroying the evidence is not ruled out. Therefore, pending investigation, this petitioner is not entitled for bail.

11. Accordingly, the criminal petition of the accused No.3 is hereby dismissed.