1 Crl.Misc. No.2920/2024 KABC010082152024 IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE ( P.C. Act) BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.24) Dated: This the 2 nd day of April, 2024 :PRESENT: K.M. RADHAKRISHNA, B.A.LL.B., XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge ( P.C. Act), Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City. Crl.Misc. No.2920/2024 Petitioner : Sri. A.R. Ramesh, Aged about 63 years, C/o. A.S. Ramanna, R/a. No.98, Ground floor, 3rd main, Kumaraswamy Layout, VTC Bengaluru South, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078. (By Sri Nasir A.K., Advocate) ­ V e r s u s ­ Respondent : State of Karnataka by (Vidhana Soudha Police) CID (SE) Squad Investigation Division, Bengaluru. (By the Public Prosecutor) 2 Crl.Misc. No.2920/2024 ORDERS This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner (accused No.61) for grant of an anticipatory bail in respect of offences punishable under Section 465, 468, 471, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'IPC'), Section 7, 8, 9 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the 'PC Act') in Crime No.56/2022 of the CID police, Bengaluru is seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor with a prayer to reject the same for reasons set out in his written objections and on the strength of the accompanying I.O. report.

2. Heard arguments from both side.

3. The points for consideration is :

“ Whether the petition deserves to be allowed as sought for?”

4. My answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following:

REASONS

5. It is a case which is popularly known as 'Teachers'

scam case.' Admittedly, the accused was working as the 3 Crl.Misc. No.2920/2024 Superintendent in the office of Assistant Director, the department of Public Education under the government of Karnataka. He is a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the PC Act. The allegation in specific against him is that: The State Government of Karnataka has notified for the appointment of grade­2 Assistant teachers and grade­1 Physical Education teachers in the government high schools during the year 2014­15. Accused No.13 was one of the aspirant to the post. She has not even attended the eligibility examination conducted by the department nor was a deserved candidate for the appointment. Having suppressed the same, the applicant­accused No.61 has in collusion with other accused persons including accused No.15 has recommended for the approval to the appointment of accused No.13. Accused No.13 having extended the benefit of undue advantage has managed to get approval of her appointment and thereby deprived the right of eligible candidates for the same post. She has illegally served as a teacher and got drawn the salary from the government exchequer. Now according to the prosecution, the 61st accused has not only committed the illegality in discharging his duty but also responsible for the huge loss caused to the State exchequer.

6. The applicant accused herein denies the allegations

made against him and contends that, he is an innocent and has not committed any offence. While referring the issuance of the notice by the investigating agency for his appearance, 4 Crl.Misc. No.2920/2024 this petitioner apprehends his arrest at any point of time and pleads that, in the event of his arrest he will be put to great injustice being a retired officer suffering from different age related ailments. Therefore, he has expressed his readiness to abide any conditions and urged this court to protect his personal liberty in the form of granting the pre­ arrest bail.

7. Perusal of the objections raised by the learned

prosecutor so also the I.O. report renders to be customary in nature. Admittedly, the accused being a retired government servant has been living with his family members at Kumaraswamy layout, Bengaluru south in the territorial limits of this court. He is not having any criminal antecedents except facing the allegations in question which demands the full fledged and trial based decision to point out his guilt or otherwise. Major number of accused persons are already on bail by the orders of this court so also the Hon'ble High Court. Though it is a crime of 2022, the investigation is not yet concluded till date and likely to take the considerable length of time. There appears no necessity of the custodial interrogation in this case. In the circumstances, the apprehension of arrest expressed by the petitioner appears to be reasonable and supported by the justification. 5 Crl.Misc. No.2920/2024

8. Therefore, the grant of conditional bail would not only serves the object of justice but also ensures the effective

investigation of the case and the presence of the accused for the purpose of the investigation as and when requires. The conditional bail would in no way affects or derails the impartial investigation. Even otherwise it is made clear that, in the event if the future acts of the accused are likely to affect the effective investigation or interest of the prosecution as the case may be, it is always open for the agency concerned to take necessary steps for cancellation of the bail at any stage of the proceedings. On the strength of the above observations, I am to hold that the objections raised by the learned prosecutor cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

The application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner­accused No.61 is allowed. He is directed to appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.56/2022 of the CID Bengaluru within one week from today. In such an event, the investigating officer concerned is directed to release the petitioner­ accused No.61 by name Sri A.R. Ramesh in the event of his arrest on his executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/­ with one surety for 6 Crl.Misc. No.2920/2024 likesum and return the bonds to the court for the reference. This order is subject to the following conditions;

1. The petitioner shall not indulge in any

offences in future.

2. He shall not influence the prosecution witnesses nor shall destroy its evidence

in any manner.

3. He shall appear before the investigating officer and extend his timely co­operation

as and when requires for the purpose of an interrogation.

4. He shall not leave the Country without

prior permission of the Court. In the event, if violates any of these conditions, the investigating agency can seek the cancellation of bail at any stage of the proceedings. (Dictated to the Steno Gr.1 directly on computer, computerized by him, corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 2nd day of April, 2024). (K.M.RADHAKRISHNA) XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru. 7 Crl.Misc. No.2920/2024 The operative portion of the separate order is pronounced in the open Court as hereunder.

ORDER

The application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner­accused No.61 is allowed. He is directed to appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.56/2022 of the CID Bengaluru within one week from today. In such an event, the investigating officer concerned is directed to release the petitioner­ accused No.61 by name Sri A.R. Ramesh in the event of his arrest on his executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/­ with one surety for likesum and return the bonds to the court for the reference. This order is subject to the following conditions; 8 Crl.Misc. No.2920/2024 1) The petitioner shall not indulge in any offences in future. 2) He shall not influence the prosecution witnesses nor shall destroy its evidence in any manner. 3) He shall appear before the investigating officer and extend his timely co­operation as and when requires for the purpose of an interrogation. 4) He shall not leave the Country without prior permission of the Court. In the event, if violates any of these conditions, the investigating agency can seek the cancellation of bail at any stage of the proceedings. XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.