Most Unfortunate That A Former HC Judge Paid Bribe For Governor Post : Karnataka High Court

A single-judge bench of Justice K Natarajan made this observation while refusing to grant bail to Yuvaraj Swami who allegedly duped the former judge to the tune of Rs 8.50 crore. The petitioner had approached the court seeking bail in different crimes registered against him by the Cyber Crime Police, High Grounds Police and Jnanabharathi Police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 419, 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Case Background:

Yuvaraj Swami was arrested in December 2020 by Bengaluru police for allegedly cheating several people of crores of rupees by promising them high positions in the government.

The retired High Court judge allegedly paid the accused Rs 8.5 crore through RTGS and cash after Yuvaraj took the ex-judge to meet top political leaders to convince to make payments in 2018-19. The retired judge filed a police complaint of being cheated by Yuvaraj Swami following his arrest in December 2020.

Submission on behalf of the accused:

Senior Advocate Tomy Sebastian appearing for the accused contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated by the Police on the complaint filed by him against the Joint Commissioner of Police, CCB, to Lokayukta. The Police have called the complainants and received complaints from them and registered the cases against the petitioner. In fact, none of the victims have lodged complaints to the Police.

Further, the amounts received by the petitioner have been already recovered by the Police and they have also seized the Bank accounts of the petitioner. The Police have already filed charge-sheet in Crime Nos.40, 74 and 75 of 2020 and in another three cases, the Police are likely to file charge-sheet within a short period. Hence, the presence of the petitioner is no more required for investigation.

It was also said as regards the Wilson Garden Police registered a case in Crime No.125 of 2020 on the ground that he received Rs.8.50 crore from Indrakala for getting a Central Government job and the petitioner has been granted bail by the trial Court and in the said case, the charge-sheet has already been filed.

Lastly, it was said "The alleged offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Keeping the petitioner in custody will not serve any purpose. The petitioner is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and will cooperate with the Investigating Officer for further investigation, if any.

Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of the high court in the case of MOHAMMAD MANSOOR KHAN v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, wherein the accused therein has been granted bail and the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the accused therein.

Prosecution opposed the plea.

Special Public Prosecutor V.M. Sheelavant, contended that petitioner cheated so many persons by receiving huge money from them with false assurance to provide jobs and not provided them. The Police have recovered huge cash and filled cheques from the custody of the petitioner. The petitioner is a proclaimed offender in a case registered by Upparpet Police in the year 2003 itself. In the said cases, the petitioner was absconding for almost 16 years.

He also submitted that "Though the Police have recovered documents and filled cheques from the custody of the petitioner, they are yet to investigate the matter with regard to cash transactions made and received by the petitioner. The Police are required to file an additional charge-sheet. The petitioner is a very influential person and is in contact with Ministers and bureaucrats. The petitioner is yet to disclose the names of the persons to whom he has paid the money. Even, Income Tax Department and the Directorate of Enforcement are also verifying the case for taking cognizance of the offences and are making enquiry to take the custody of the petitioner to further investigate in the case.

It was also said "The Police are still trying to unearth the cash and other offences committed by the petitioner. If the petitioner is granted bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses, commit similar offences and abscond from the case."

Court findings:

The court on going through the details of each case registered against the accused noted "Though he has stated in his voluntary statement that he has paid some amounts to the politicians and other persons and assured to provide jobs, but the petitioner seems to be a middleman and highly influential person having contact with Ministers otherwise, it is not possible to promise or assure for providing or securing jobs like Governor, Chairman of

Boards and Transport Corporation and also other posts do not arise. He is suppressing the names of the persons to whom he has paid the money for securing the posts."

Justice Natarajan said "He has committed a heinous offence of cheating the educated people as well as a retired High Court Judge. It is unfortunate that the learned Magistrate granted bail in Crime No.125/2020 where the accused received Rs.8.50 Crores for securing the post of Governor. It is most unfortunate that the State has not chosen to file any application for cancellation of the bail granted by the Magistrate."

It added "It is also most unfortunate that a former Judge of the High Court has paid bribe to the petitioner for securing the Post of Governor which act of the complainant not only lowered the prestige of a Judge and also affect the image of Governor's post."

Following which the bench held "Looking at the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if this petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper with the prosecution witnesses and committing similar offences is not ruled out. He is a very influential person and he may threaten the prosecution witnesses and cause a hurdle to the investigation by the Police. If he is granted bail, there will be a wrong message sent to the Society that a person having money can buy a post in the Government. Hence, he does not deserve for grant of any bail."

Turning down the reliance placed by the petition on the judgment in the case of MOHAMMAD MANSOOR KHAN v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT. The court said "That case cannot be compared with this case. Here in this case, the petitioner is notorious and having so much influence with the political parties and cheating the persons under the guise of providing posts in government organisations and that too to the level of assuring for providing the post of governor."

It concluded by saying "Such being the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for bail in all the petitions."

Case Title: YUVARAJ And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1958 OF 2021

Date of Order: 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

Coram: JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

Appearance: Senior Advocate TOMY SEBASTIAN, a/w Advocate MELANIE SEBASTIAN for petitioner.

Special Public Prosecutor V.M. SHEELAVANT for respondents.