IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16337 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /

483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. SRI.MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY C M

S/O LATE C M MANACHARYA

AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS

JUNIOR ENGINEER, CIVIL SUB DIVISION

MESCOM, CHIKKAMAGALURU

R/O 161, 2^ND STAGE,

HOUSING BOARD, CHIKKAMAGALURU

NATIVE OF GOWRAMMA BEEDHI

CHANNAGIRI TOWN,

DAVANGERE DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI M R NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by

LAKSHMINARA YANA MURTHY RAJASHRI

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Location: HIGH

COURT OF BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE

KARNATAKA

CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT

REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MANISH R, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI B B PATEL, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR.No.0012/2025 OF LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, CHIKKAMGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7(a) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1989.

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 BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.12/2025 of Lokayuktha Police Station, Chikkamangluru registered for offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

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

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has been issued with Prashasti by the Chief Minister on 15.06.2015 and thereafter, there is no black spot on the working of the petitioner. The false case came to be filed against the petitioner. The trap is already over and the petitioner is in custody since

04.11.2021 and therefore, he is not required for further custodial interrogation. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The maximum sentence that can be imposed is imprisonment which may extend upto 07 years.

With this, he prays to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there is clear demand and acceptance of bribe by the petitioner. The pre-trap mahazar contains the conversation between petitioner and the complainant wherein the petitioner has demanded bribe of Rs.40,000/-. The complainant is contractor and his work that is clearing bill for work done was pending with the petitioner. The trap was successful and petitioner was caught when he received the bait amount. With this he prayed to reject the petition.

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

6. The petitioner is working as Junior Engineer in MESCOM. The complainant is electrical contractor. The case of prosecution is that the work of the complainant was pending with the petitioner i.e., to clear the bills submitted by him. It is the case of prosecution that for clearing the said bills of the complainant, the petitioner has demanded Rs.40,000/-. The pre-trap conversation has been recorded and it is reduced in the pre-mahazar. The trap has been laid and the petitioner has been caught when he received the bribe amount. Major portion of the investigation will be over in trap cases on the day of the trap itself except receiving the FSL report. The Investigating Officer has prepared mahazar and also collected documents. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable either with death or imprisonment. The petitioner is working as Junior Engineer in MESCOM and his presence can be secured easily for investigation and trial. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since

04.11.2025. As major portion of the investigation is over, he is not required for further custodial interrogation. Considering the