Legal standards for granting bail in corruption cases focus on the completion of investigation and potential for witness tampering.

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Spl.Public Prosecutor for respondent / Lokayukta Police and perused the material on record.

2. This petition is preferred under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner/accused in Crime No.8/2025 of Lokayukta Police Station, Chikkamagaluru registered for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act, 2018).

Brief Facts:

3. Complainant - Sri Gurusai D.L. is a Civil Contractor. On 21.10.2024, the Koppa Town Panchayath had invited tender in Karnataka Public Procurement Portal for road work at Market Road and Vivekananda Road under the Town Panchayath limits. In the tender proceedings, complainant was the successful bidder, bid amount being Rs.7,59,106.02. He entered into an agreement with Koppa Town Panchayath and work order was issued on 03.12.2024. The work was completed in the month of January - February, 2025. After completion of the work when the complainant approached the petitioner - Chief Officer of Koppa Town Panchayat, he demanded Rs.50,000/- bribe to pass the said bill. The said conversation was recorded by the complainant. Unwilling to pay the amount, complainant lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta Police. A pre-trap mahazar was conducted. Trap was laid on 12.08.2025. The complainant along with shadow witnesses and the Lokayukta Police went to the Town Panchayat Office, Koppa. When the complainant approached the accused, he once again demanded the bribe. The said conversation was also recorded. The accused while accepting bribe of Rs.25,000/-, was trapped. A trap mahazar was drawn and accused was arrested.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that necessary ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out. There is no demand and acceptance of bribe and even according to the prosecution, tainted currency was not found in the exclusive possession of the petitioner, but it was in the table drawer. He contended that petitioner is innocent and he has been implicated in a false case. He contended that the alleged pre-trap mahazar and trap mahazar are contradicting each other and the manner in which the trap is conducted is illegal. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has been suspended from service.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that the entire investigation has been completed, petitioner is in judicial custody from 12.08.2025. He is not required for further interrogation. Therefore, by imposing any condition, he may be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned Spl.Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has filed statement of objections. He has vehemently contended that the conversation between the complainant and the accused has been recorded in the voice recorder and the tainted currency has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. He contended that in view of the statement of the complainant, shadow witnesses and resultant hand wash, there is a prima-facie case against the petitioner. He contended that the custody of the petitioner is very much required till completion of investigation and if he is released on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the documents and the witnesses. He, therefore, sought to dismiss the petition.

7. A perusal of the material on record, shows that there was a complaint filed against the petitioner before the respondent / Lokayukta Police subsequent to which a trap was laid and tainted currency of Rs.25,000/- was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The prosecution is relying on the statement of the complainant, shadow witnesses, trap mahazars, conversation between the petitioner and the complainant, resultant hand wash of the petitioner. It