IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16216 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /

483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. SWAMY B C

S/O CHANDRAPPA B.N

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

A.E.E.,P.R.E.D, DEPARTMENT

TIPTUR TOWN

TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.

R/O 8^TH KAPILA ROAD, NEW KEB EXTENDTION

SAPTHAGIRI ENTENSTION

TUMKUR TOWN.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. VANDANA P L, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE

Digitally signed by

LAKSHMINARAYANA

TUMKURU.

MURTHY RAJASHRI

Location: HIGH REP. BY REPRESENTED BY SPP

COURT OF

KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING

BANGALORE - 560 001

BENGALURU.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MANISH R, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI B B PATIL, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (FILED

U/S.483 BNSS) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME No.10/2025

REGISTERED BY LOKAYUKTHA ON THE FILE OF THE 7^th ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, TUMAKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION

7(a) OF P.C. ACT 1988.

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 petitioner -accused No.1 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.10/2025 of Tumkuru Lokayuktha Police Station registered for offences punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the complainant has affixed the signature on the complaint by mentioning the date as 11.11.2025 and the CPI has received the same at 08.30 p.m. on 10.11.2025 and in the above FIR the time of receiving the complaint is mentioned as 03.30 a.m. on 11.11.2025.

Therefore, there are contradictions in that regard. The complainant has completed the work on 10.11.2025 and submitted the bills and on the same day itself he has filed the complaint. As the trap is laid and documents are collected, the major portion of the investigation is over. Therefore, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. The petitioner is ready to co- operate with the Investigating Officer for further investigation and abide by conditions to be imposed by this Court. With these, she prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the petitioner and accused No.2 have demanded bribe at the rate of 3% and 2% respectively for clearing the bills of the complainant from the complainant along with that petitioner has demanded Rs.15,000/- to be paid to the MLA. The work of the complainant was pending with the petitioner as he has to clear the bills of the work done by the complainant. The conversation recorded in the mobile phone of the complainant clearly indicates demand of bribe by this petitioner and accused No.2. The trap is successful and the petitioner has been caught red handed when he had received Rs.34,900/- from the complainant. The amount to be paid to accused No.2 has been sent by the complainant by phone pay to accused No.3. Accused No.3 has also stated in the conversation for having received Rs.15,000/- from complainant. There is clear demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner pertaining to the work of the complainant. The investigation is in progress. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

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

6. The complainant is a contractor and he has undertaken contract work of repair of the two schools. As per averments of the complaint, complainant has completed the said works on 10.11.2025 and submitted the bills. As per averments of the complaint, the petitioner has demanded bribe at the rate of 3% of the bill amount and accused No.2 demanded bribe at the rate of 2% of the bill amount and apart from that the petitioner has demanded Rs.15,000