| |
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 802
|
| Court : High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi) |
| Case No : Criminal Petition No.200849 Of 2026 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)) |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY |
| Parties : Vishwanath Mudreddy & Another Versus The State Of Karnataka Through, Lokayukta Police Station, Represented By Addl. SPP, Kalaburagi |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Baburao Mangane, Advocate. For the Respondent: Subhash Mallapur, SPP. |
| Date of Judgment : 29-06-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7(A) -
Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC-K 4679,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 483 of BNSS 2023
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act (Amended Act, 2018)
- Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Prima facie
- Remand
- Investigation
- Police officials
3. Summary:
The petitioners, a Sub‑Inspector and a Police Constable, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for offences alleged under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. The Special Public Prosecutor raised oral objections, claiming a prima facie case and risk of witness tampering. The Court noted that the alleged offence carries a maximum imprisonment of seven years and that custodial investigation was not presently required. It held that the petitioners, being police personnel with no prior record, were unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence, and that appropriate conditions could mitigate any risk. Consequently, the Court found no substantial ground to deny bail and ordered the petitioners to be released on bail with specified conditions.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS 2023, praying to grant the regular bail to the Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 in Fir No.23/2026 (Crime No.14/2026 of Lokayukta P.S., Kalaburagi), pending on the file of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act (Amended Act, 2018), in the interest of justice and equity.)
Oral Order
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/Lokayukta. Perused the relevant materials on record.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioners/ accused No.1 and 2 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for an order to grant bail in the case in FIR No.23/2026 pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi arising out of the case in Crime No.14/2026 of the respondent Lokayukta for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'PC Act').
3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has not filed statement of objections to the petition. However, he orally objects to the petition submitting that there is prima facie against the petitioners for the alleged offences. The petitioners are Sub-Inspector and Police Constable. If they are released on bail, there is chance of them tampering the prosecution witnesses and hampering further investigation of the case. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. The case alleged against the petitioners is that the complainant is doing rice business and the petitioners used to ask the informant to pay bribe of Rs.50,000/- to them and then only, they would allow him to do rice business. Accordingly, on 12.06.2026 the complainant contacted the petitioner No.2 through mobile. At that time, the petitioner No.2 demanded to pay Rs.50,000/- as bribe. Thereafter, he paid Rs.20,000/- through PhonePe and the petitioner No.2 demanded to pay the remaining amount of Rs.30,000/-. Hence, on 17.06.2026 the informant contacted the Lokayukta Police and at that time the Lokayukta Police gave voice recorder to him. Accordingly, on the next day i.e., 18.06.2026 at about 8.30 p.m., the petitioner No.2 called the informant to come to Police Quarters. Accordingly, the informant along with one Ramachandra went to the Yadrami Police Quarters, wherein, the petitioners were present and they demanded the informant to give bribe. Accordingly, the petitioners have committed the alleged offence.
5. The case was registered against the petitioners and on the same day i.e., on 18.06.2026 the petitioners were arrested by the respondent Lokayukta and took up the investigation. The panchnama was drawn for seizure of the alleged amount and the conversation between the informant and the petitioners was also recorded.
6. The contention of the petitioners is that they are innocent of the offence alleged against them and they have not committed any offence as alleged against them. But, as submitted by the Special Prosecutor for the respondent, the investigation is at initial stage and it is yet to be completed and therefore, at this stage, any of the contentions of the petitioners that they are innocent of the offences alleged, does not merit consideration.
7. However, for the sake of arguments, even if it is accepted that there is prima facie case against the petitioners for the alleged offence, the said offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The punishment for the said offence is imprisonment to extent of 7 years. Moreover, the fact that after arrest of the petitioners, the respondent Lokayukta drew panchnama and thereafter sought for remand of the petitioners to the judicial custody, would clearly show that for the present the custodial investigation of the petitioners is not required by the respondent Lokayukta.
8. Further, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner No.1 is Sub-Inspector of Police and the petitioner No.2 is Police Constable. Hence, if they are released on bail, there is no chance of petitioners absconding or tampering with the further investigation of the case. Any of the apprehensions of the learned Special Prosecutor for the respondent Lokayukta put forth in the objections can be suitably met with by imposing proper and necessary conditions on the petitioners making them to assist the I.O. in further investigation of the case.
9. As mentioned herein above, the petitioners are police officials and they are permanent residents of Yadrami Village within the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Special Court. There is no material forthcoming from the respondent Lokayukta that there is any antecedent of the petitioners that they committed similar offence or any other offence earlier.
10. There is no serious ground made out by the respondent Lokayukta to deny bail to the petitioners and consequently, the petitioners have made out sufficient ground to grant bail. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed.
11. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1) The criminal petition is allowed.
2) Consequently, the petitioners/ accused No. 1 and 2 shall be enlarged on bail in the case in Crime No.14/2026 of the respondent Lokayukta for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act (Amended Act, 2018), on their executing personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, subject to the following conditions that:
i. The petitioners shall appear before the Special Judge on all the hearing dates and they shall assist the Special Judge in trial of the case.
ii. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer/ respondent Lokayukta as and when required and shall assist the I.O. in further investigation of the case.
iii. They shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses and also shall not hamper further investigation of the case in any manner, and
iv. They shall not commit any similar offence or any offence during the pendency of case.
If the petitioners violate any of the conditions of the bail, the bail granted in their favour shall stand cancelled.
|
| |
