Anticipatory bail may be granted in exceptional circumstances in corruption cases, where direct evidence against the accused is lacking, and conditions can mitigate prosecution concerns.

ORDER :

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.

Heard the learned senior counsel Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, for Sri. Sampreeth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Special Prosecutor Sri. Venkatesh S. Arbatti for respondent-Lokayukta Police.

2. Perused the material on record.

3. Petitioner, not named as an accused in the FIR registered by Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru City, in Crime No.28/2025, is before this Court in this petition under Section 482 of the BNSS , 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.

4. FIR is registered on a complaint lodged by the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru against one Ningappa Savantha and others, for the offence Punishable under Section 7 (A), 7(a) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

5. As per complaint, some unknown persons impersonating as Lokayukta officials were extracting money from the public servants. It is alleged that the accused by name Ningappa Savantha, used to contact the officials of various departments allegedly claiming that he has contact with Lokayukta officials and telling them, if the money is not paid, he will get raids conducted and have them arrested.

6. Petitioner, then working as Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, received a notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS , 2023 to participate in the enquiry. It is submitted that on 15.06.2025, i.e., on the date of issuance of notice, search was conducted in the house of petitioner, wherein, cash of Rs.32,000/- and 189 grams of gold were found. The said articles were, however, returned to him.

7. Petitioner apprehending his arrest filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before the Special Court in Crl.Misc.No.5060/2025. In the meanwhile, he filed W.P.No.17564/2025 for quashing of the proceedings. This Court was pleased to grant an order of stay. The anticipatory bail petition came to be rejected on 24.06.2025, on the ground that this Court has stayed all further proceedings of the crime and the said stay is in force and therefore, there is no apprehension of arrest.

8. Writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of on 08.07.2025, reserving liberty to him to take recourse to such remedy as available in law, including filing of an application for anticipatory bail. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner once again approached the Special Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.5922/2025. The learned Special Judge vide order dated 18.07.2025 rejected the said petition. While, rejecting the petition, learned Special Judge has observed that, as admitted by the petitioner, he appeared before the investigating agency in response to the second notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS , 2023 dated 09.07.2025 and given his statement. His two mobile phones were seized by the police under a panchanama. After interrogation, petitioner was sent back and no arrest was made. Thus, there is no apprehension of his arrest. It is further observed that the prosecution has not indicated the necessity of his custodial interrogation and his name also does not find place as accused either in the complaint or in the FIR including the related papers.

9. It is the contention of learned senior counsel that subsequent to rejection of his application seeking bail, petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.2, as per statement of objection filed by the State. He contended that when search was conducted in the house of petitioner, only a sum of Rs.32,000/- in cash and some gold was found which was returned to him and petitioner has responded to the notice issued to him and participated in the enquiry and two mobile phones were seized from him. It is his contention that now on the ground that the said two mobile phones are damaged and alleging that there were conversations bet