Karnataka HC allows withdrawal of bail petition in which it had made adverse remarks against ACB

Deputy tahsildar withdrew petition as he was granted default bail by trial court as final probe report was not submitted within 60 days

July 22, 2022 12:43 am | Updated 12:43 am IST - Bengaluru

A view of the High Court of Karnataka .

A view of the High Court of Karnataka .

The High Court of Karnataka on Thursday dismissed as withdrawn a bail petition, in which a single-judge Bench had recently made several adverse remarks on the functioning of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and its head.

The petition was withdrawn by counsel for Mahesh P.S., a deputy tahsildar attached to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban, and an accused in the alleged bribery case, as a trial court has granted default bail to Mr. Mahesh, as the ACB could not submit the final investigation report within the stipulated period of 60 days.

When the petition came up for hearing before Justice H.P Sandesh, counsel for Mr. Mahesh sought the court’s permission to withdraw the petition, as it did not survive for further consideration before the High Court in view of the default bail.

Mr. Mahesh is accused of demanding a bribe of ₹5 lakh from a landowner on the behalf of J. Manjunath, an IAS officer and then DC, Bengaluru Urban.

Mr. Manjunath was arraigned as an accused and arrested, only after the High Court had questioned why the DC was not made as an accused in the case.

Justice Sandesh, during earlier hearings on the petition, had disclosed that he had received a ‘threat’ and had also summoned the service records of ACB’s head, Additional Director-General of Police Seemant Kumar Singh, besides noting down adverse remarks made against him in his service records.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court, on July 18, stayed the proceedings, which are not linked to the pleadings of the accused deputy tahsildar seeking bail.

The SC passed the interim order in separate appeals filed by the ACB, Mr. Singh, and Mr. Manjunath questioning the HC’s adverse remarks against them.

The Supreme Court prima facie found that HC’s observations were “either irrelevant or detrimental to the fair trial of the accused.”

However, the SC had permitted the judge of the HC to decide the bail petition expeditiously which declining the plea of appellants to shift the hearing of the petition before another judge.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.