Forest official charged with creating fake vacancy gets bail

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: Deputy Conservator of Forests, Madikeri, Kodagu, Poornima, who has been accused of creating a non-existent watchman's vacancy has been granted bail by the Karnataka High Court in the alleged corruption case.

The forest official has been charged with forcing a staff member to create false documents to show there were two watchmen while in reality there was only one, and trying to misappropriate the benefits paid to the non-existent watchman.

Poornima’s petition came up before the bench of Justice V Srishananda. She is facing charges under Section 7(a) and (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in a case filed by the Lokayuktha police and pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kodagu. After her bail plea before the Sessions court was rejected on March 20, 2023, she approached the High Court.

The complaint against Poornima was filed by one Mayura Udaya Karavekara alleging that while she was working as the Deputy Conservator of Forests, she pestered him to create false documents to show that instead of one watchman working in the place, there were two. It was alleged that she was seeking commission on official bills and collected Rs 50,000 as bribe and was demanding a further Rs 50,000 in bribe.

Karavekara complained to the Lokayuktha police and a trap was laid for Poor nima. The alleged bribe money was recovered from her. The police then registered the FIR against her. In the HC, the advocate for Poornima argued that there was no need to take her into custody as the alleged bribe money was already recovered from her and “there remains nothing to be seized from the custody of the petitioner.”

Stringent Conditions

The HC accepted the contentions of the advocate for Poornima. In the judgement, Justice V Srishananda, said, “The tainted currency to the tune of Rs 50,000 has already been recovered from the accused and colour test stood positive. The explanation offered by the petitioner is taken on record. The files and papers pertaining to the complaint are seized. Therefore, the apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may tamper with the prosecution witnesses stands quelled to a greater extent.”

Granting her bail, the HC said, “Since the cash and relevant documents were seized, this Court does not find any real and compelling reasons to continue the accused petitioner in judicial custody any longer nor is it a case for custodial trial as is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The other apprehension of the prosecution can be met with by imposing stringent and suitable conditions.”