Karnataka BJP MLA Madal Virupakshappa Gets Bail In Bribery Case On Personal Bond Of ₹5 Lakh

A sessions court in Bengaluru on Saturday granted bail to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Madal Virupakshappa accused in the alleged bribery case. He was arrested on March 27, by the Karnataka Lokayukta police following the High Court rejecting his anticipatory bail application.

Additional City Civil and Session Judge, B. Jayantha Kumar, granted bail to Madal on him executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees Five lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum.

The court granted bail to the accused primarily on consideration of health conditions. It said “The petitioner is having heart disease and he is an aged person. It is pertinent to note that proviso to Sec.437 of Cr.P.C., says that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm. So considering the age of petitioner/ accused No.1 and the disease, which he is suffering from, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to release him on bail.”

The court also rejected the contention of the prosecution that if the accused is released on bail, he may abscond, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and he may hamper the investigation and he has not cooperated during police custody for fair investigation.

It said “The petitioner has undertaken to cooperate and assist in fair investigation and trial of the case. The police alleged that he has not cooperated during the investigation. But on this ground alone, his bail application cannot be rejected, as the police have not seized any amount from his hand.”

Further it said “The prosecution has also produced the statement of Dr.Mahesh.M. Managing Director of KSDL, which prima facie shows the involvement of accused No.1 and interference of accused No.2 in the tender process of KSDL. In spite of that, keeping the accused No.1 in custody for a long period, no purpose would be served to the prosecution and it is for the prosecution to investigate the source of the amount of Rs.6,10,30,000.”

According to the case details, a complaint was lodged before the Lokayuktha Police alleging that Virupakshappa demanded illegal gratification to process a certain tender in Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd (KSDL).

Pursuant to the complaint, the Lokayuktha Police registered an FIR for offences under section 7(a) of PC(Amended) Act, 2018 against the petitioner and others. Later, Virupakshappa's son V Prashanth Madal and other accused were allegedly caught red-handed accepting a graft of Rs 40 lakh. It has also been alleged that over Rs 8 crore was recovered by Lokayukta from the MLA's son last week.

Madal had sought bail saying there was no official favour or any official work pending with the petitioner in order to show official favour to the complainant and as such the same also not averred in the complaint and therefore, in the absence of existence of any official favour, demand or acceptance, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any offence under Sec.7 of the P.C.Act.

Further, it was said from the material available on record as is evident that the tender allotment committee had granted tender in favour of the informant, to which committee the petitioner is no way concerned as early as January 2023.

“The informant has not submitted the invoices/bills in relation to the materials said to have supplied by him and that the invoices/bills are not passed for payment. In fact, the evidence on record shows that the informant has not even supplied the materials in relation to the tender that was awarded in his favour. In the absence of any materials been supplied by the informant and subsequent thereto, there was no submission of bills towards the supply of materials pending, it cannot be said that the element of demand of illegal gratification as against the alleged clearance of the bills is present,” it was said.

Further, the plea stated that Madal is a heart patient and he is suffering age-related problems, the Doctor who attended him implanted a stunt instead of giving him a major surgical treatment which infact was warranted. He has got pain in his chest, giddiness, uneasiness, fainting attacks, difficulty in breathing. It was also claimed that there is non compliance of Sec.41 and 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it was said.

Prosecution had opposed the plea saying Madal enjoys high status in the society and he is highly influential and without his interference, tender process of KSDL is difficult. Therefore, for awarding of tender and for smooth clearance of future bills, the accused has demanded bribe and thereby committed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

On going through the records the court said, “This is a serious offence and accused No.2 being a public servant allegedly making deals and therefore, these offences comes under the category of (A) and (D), stated in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in“Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI and another”.”

It held “Therefore, I am of the opinion that the alleged offence does not come under the purview of Sec.41 of Cr.P.C. Even in the present case if it is considered that it comes under the purview of Sec.41(1) of Cr.P.C., the Investigation Officer has not violated the provision.”

Accordingly it allowed the petition and directed the accused shall mark his attendance before the concerned Lokayukta Police Station once in three weeks preferably on Sunday till completion of the investigation. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses.

Madal is directed to not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission and he shall surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer till further orders. He shall not visit the factory and premises of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited, Bengaluru, till investigation is over.

Case Title: K. Madal Virupakshappa And State by Karnataka Lokayukta Police

Case No: Crl. Misc. No.3063 / 2023

Date of Order: 15th day of April, 2023

Appearance: Sandeep Patil, Advocate for petitioner.

Santosh S.Nagarale, Learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent.