SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 918

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
SRI. DODDAIAH A B – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 16413/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16413 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC) /

482(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. DODDAIAH A B

S/O LATE BHEEMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

RETIRED CHIEF ENGINEER

R/AT No.22, BEML 10TH STAGE

1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS

CHANNASANDRA, R.R NAGAR

BANGALORE – 560 098.

2. SRI. SATEESH

S/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

R/AT No.1183/A, 17TH MAIN CHOCOLATE FACTORY ROAD

BTM 1ST STAGE

Digitally signed by BANGALORE -560 029.

LAKSHMINARAYANA

MURTHY RAJA SHRI

Location: HIGH PRESENTLY WORKING AS AEE

COURT OF

KARNATAKA GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY TVC

NR SQUARE, BANGALORE- 560 002.

3. SRI VIJAY KUMAR.N

S/O. LATE N.M LINGEGOWDA

RETIRED CHIEF ENGINEER

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

RETIRED CHIEF ENGINEER

BBMP R/AT No.713, 2ND MAIN

11TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI

BANGALORE -560 072.

4. SRI BASAVARAJU S/O LATE NANJALAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT No.GF02, SV BREZZA SAPTAGIRI LAYOUT MUTTURAYANAGARA BANGALORE – 560 048.

PRESENTLY WORKING AS AEE TECHNICAL AND MAINTENANCE DIVISION BANGALORE EAST CITY CORPORATION GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY PHOENIX MALL OPP. MAHADEVAPURA BANGALORE- 560 048.

5. SRI M SIDDARAMAIAH S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT No.53/A, SRI NANDI

2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN ARUNACHALAM LAYOUT KOMMAGHATTA MAIN ROAD KENGERI, BANGALORE – 560 060.

PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER TECHNICAL AND MAINTENANCE DIVISION BANGALORE WEST CITY CORPORATION DIVISION ZONE-I BENGALURU.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI H V MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE BANGALORE CITY POLICE STATION, No.1 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B B PATIL, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 (FILED UNDER SECTION 482 BNSS) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE INSTANT PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, BENGALURU POLICE IN RESPECT OF CRIME No.55/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF 23TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-24) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 13(1)(a) R/W SEC.13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 AND SECTIONS

120(B),409,419,420,417 OF IPC 1860.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed by accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 under Section 482 of BNSS praying to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No. 55/2025 of Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Station, Bengaluru registered for offences under Sections 13(1)(a) and Section 13(2) of IPC and Sections 120(B), 409, 419, 420, 417 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that the complaint has been made on 02.09.2020 and FIR has been registered on 06.11.2025 and there is a huge delay of more than 5 years in registering the case. The work has been carried out by Cradle and not by the BBMP. Petitioners were then working in BBMP. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 who were working as Chief Engineers are retired now. Other petitioners are working in Greater Bangalore Authority, East and West Corporations. The premises of the petitioners have been raided and documents have been seized. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners in the entire complaint. The allegations in the complaint are general in nature. Petitioners have co- operated with the investigation and are also ready to further co-operate with the investigating agency in the investigation. The offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra learned counsel for respondent would contend that earlier complaint was made to ACB and subsequently after ACB was abolished documents were transferred to the Lokayukta. Now case has been registered by Lokayukta which caused delay in registering the case. There was a raid on the premises of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top