IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14942 OF 2025

(439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. NAGARAJU

S/O VENKATANARASAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

WORKING AS HEAD MASTER,

HAVANURU RURAL HIGH SCHOOL,

MADALURU VILLAGE,

SIRA TALUK,

R/AT SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION,

TUMKAURU - 572101.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. A.N. RADHA KRISHNA.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by

LAKSHMINAR AYANA

MURTHY RAJASHRI

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Location: HIGH

COURT OF BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,

KARNATAKA

TUMAKURU,

REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR, FOR LOKAYUKTHA,

HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,

BENGALURU - 560 001

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.MANISH R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B B PATIL, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C (U/S

483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN CR.NO.7/2025 OF LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, TUMAKURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(a) OF P.C ACT, 1988 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT FOR LOKAYUKTHA.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in Crime No.7/2025 of Lokayukta Police, Tumakuru registered for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner would contend that, the allegation against the petitioner is that, he demanded Rs.23,000/- for sanction of paternity and earned leave to the complainant. The said conversation recorded in the mobile phone has now been seized, which is transferred to memory card. There is no trap. The petitioner is in custody since 09.10.2025 and as major portion of the investigation is over, he is not required for any custodial interrogation. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that, there is demand and acceptance of bribe. The petitioner being Headmaster of the school for sanction of paternity and earned leave has demanded Rs.23,000/- from the complainant. The complainant as per instructions of the petitioner has transferred a sum of Rs.23,000/- by phone pay to one Lohit as directed by the petitioner. The statement of the said Lohit has been recorded. The investigation is in crucial stage. The petitioner being the headmaster of the school may tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel, the Court has perused the FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

6. The case of prosecution is that, the complainant has applied for grant of paternity leave for fifteen days and earned leave for five days. The petitioner being Headmaster of the school wherein the complainant is working as Second Division Assistant stated to have demanded Rs.23,000/- as a bribe for sanction of paternity and earned leave. The alleged demand made by the petitioner is stated to have been recorded by the complainant in his mobile and memory card has been seized. There is no trap. As per the learned counsel for the respondent, the amount of bribe of Rs.23,000/- has been transferred by the complainant to one Lohith, son of Guru, as per instructions of the petitioner by phone pay. The statement of the said Lohith is already recorded. Considering said aspect, the major portion of the investigation is over. The petitioner is in custody since 09.10.2025. As major portion of the investigation is over, he is not required for further custodial interrogation. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable either with death or impris