Bribery Case: Karnataka High Court Seeks ACB's Response To Bail Plea Moved By IAS Manjunath

A single judge of Justice K. Natrajan directed the bureau to file its objections in the registry and posted the matter for further hearing on Monday.

Manjunath was the former Bengaluru Deputy Urban Commissioner, who was arrested by the ACB following certain critical remarks made by Justice H P Sandesh, while hearing a bail application filed by a co-accused in the case.

Justice Sandesh had made scathing remarks against the ACB with respect to its investigation in a bribery case against the office of the Deputy Urban Commissioner. He had recorded in his order that an indirect threat of transfer was given to him by a sitting High Court judge for passing orders against the head of ACB, Seemanth Kumar Singh ADGP.

The revelation was made while hearing a bail application filed by one accused PS Mahesh, a deputy Tashildar arrested for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs. 5 lakh in connection with giving a favourable order from the DC office on a land dispute case. Later, on a plea moved by Manjunath and Singh before the Supreme Court, the High Court's order calling for service records of the officers came to be stayed.

In the instant petition seeking bail filed through advocate Keerthana Nagaraj, it is submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime for extraneous reasons. Manjunath has approached the High Court following rejection of his bail application by the special court vide order dated July 11.

It is averred that the allegations made against the petitioner are absurd and inherently improbable, vague and lack material evidence. The plea also gives details of the various posts held by Manjunath in different government departments and the nature of responsibilities shouldered by him.

It is submitted,

"It appears, on the face of it, that at the instance of certain external/extortion agencies, and based on the observation made by the High Court in the bail petition of accused number 2, the investigating officer has implicated the petitioner falsely but submitting an additional report, which is absurd, unjust and without jurisdiction."

The plea also says that merely because the case is pending for the orders of the DC, does not in any manner pave for an inference to be drawn as regards the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. Moreover, it is clear from the records that petitioner has neither demanded nor accepted any illegal gratification to do any official favour. There was no allegation in the FIR against him and he is not involved in the alleged transaction.

Case Title: J MANJUNATH v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRL.P 6578/2022