<p>The High Court of Karnataka has denied bail to an Office Assistant in the District Minority Development Corporation, Madikeri, stating that the phone conversation prima facie discloses the demand of a bribe. </p>.<p>P C Latha was arrested by Lokayukta police on December 23, 2022, taking Rs 10,000 for releasing the subsidy amount. </p>.<p>The complainant, who is a resident of Somwarpet taluk in Kodagu district, had applied for the grant of Rs 2.5 lakh subsidy to buy a four-wheeler taxi on June 16, 2022. When he approached the office of the District Minority Development Corporation, Latha demanded a Rs 25,000 bribe. After negotiation, she scaled it down and agreed to release the amount for Rs 20,000 and also asked the complainant to pay Rs 10,000 as the first instalment. </p>.<p>Based on the complaint, Lokayukta police laid a trap and arrested Latha when she allegedly accepted the bribe amount. The trap mahazar of November 23, 2022, also contained a conversation between the complainant and the accused. </p>.<p>Seeking bail in the matter, Latha claimed that she had been falsely implicated in the case and that there was no demand or acceptance of the bribe. </p>.<p>B S Prasad, the special public prosecutor for Lokayukta police, argued that the petitioner was trapped and taken to custody while she was receiving the bribe amount. The bail petition was also opposed on the ground that the investigation in the case is still going on. </p>.<p>Justice M G Uma noted that the trap mahazar discloses that the petitioner was trapped taking the bribe. The court also pointed out that the materials placed before the court reveal that the complainant’s application dated June 16, 2022, seeking subsidy was not acted upon till November 2022. </p>.<p>“Therefore, the contention that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis cannot be accepted. The investigation is in progress. I do find considerable force in the contention taken by the Special Public Prosecutor that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail she being the office assistant, may tamper with the documents and the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution,” the court<br />said. </p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka has denied bail to an Office Assistant in the District Minority Development Corporation, Madikeri, stating that the phone conversation prima facie discloses the demand of a bribe. </p>.<p>P C Latha was arrested by Lokayukta police on December 23, 2022, taking Rs 10,000 for releasing the subsidy amount. </p>.<p>The complainant, who is a resident of Somwarpet taluk in Kodagu district, had applied for the grant of Rs 2.5 lakh subsidy to buy a four-wheeler taxi on June 16, 2022. When he approached the office of the District Minority Development Corporation, Latha demanded a Rs 25,000 bribe. After negotiation, she scaled it down and agreed to release the amount for Rs 20,000 and also asked the complainant to pay Rs 10,000 as the first instalment. </p>.<p>Based on the complaint, Lokayukta police laid a trap and arrested Latha when she allegedly accepted the bribe amount. The trap mahazar of November 23, 2022, also contained a conversation between the complainant and the accused. </p>.<p>Seeking bail in the matter, Latha claimed that she had been falsely implicated in the case and that there was no demand or acceptance of the bribe. </p>.<p>B S Prasad, the special public prosecutor for Lokayukta police, argued that the petitioner was trapped and taken to custody while she was receiving the bribe amount. The bail petition was also opposed on the ground that the investigation in the case is still going on. </p>.<p>Justice M G Uma noted that the trap mahazar discloses that the petitioner was trapped taking the bribe. The court also pointed out that the materials placed before the court reveal that the complainant’s application dated June 16, 2022, seeking subsidy was not acted upon till November 2022. </p>.<p>“Therefore, the contention that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis cannot be accepted. The investigation is in progress. I do find considerable force in the contention taken by the Special Public Prosecutor that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail she being the office assistant, may tamper with the documents and the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution,” the court<br />said. </p>
