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) 1297

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
SRI. LINGARAJU. K – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 17679/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17679 OF 2025

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

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. LINGARAJU. K

S/O. LATE KATTAIAH,

AGED 56 YEARS,

OCCU : JOINT DIRECTOR,

DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,

TUMAKURU,

R/AT SARASWATHIPURAM,

TUMAKURU-572 105.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NITHIN GOWDA K C FOR SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P.,

ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

LAKSHMINARA YANA

MURTHY RAJASHRI BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 01

Location: HIGH TUMKUR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA

COURT OF

KARNATAKA POLICE STATION,

TUMKUR DISTRICT,

REPRESENTED BY ITS

SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

DR BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BENGALURU-560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL WHO HAS BEEN ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRIME NO.13/2025 DATED 11.12.2025 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT/KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION TUMKUR FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 7(a) OF THE PC ACT 1988, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT TUMAKURU.

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 accused No.1 under Section

483 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in Crime No.13/2025 of Tumakuru Lokayukta Police registered for the offence punishable under Section

7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

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

3. The learned counsel for petitioner would contend that, accused No.2, who has been trapped and found in receiving bribe amount, has been granted bail by this Court in Crl. P No.17545/2025 by order dated

26.12.2025. There is no conversation recorded containing demand of bribe by this petitioner. The said demand was made by accused No.2, who was working as Assistant Director. The petitioner is ready to cooperate in further investigation. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent/Lokayukta would contend that, the work of the complainant was pending with this petitioner. The petitioner has inspected the premises of the complainant. There is a conversation between the complainant and accused No.2. The conversation between the petitioner and the complainant indirectly indicates a demand for bribe through accused No.2. The petitioner is having criminal antecedents and is involved in an earlier trap case in Crime No.4/2022 of the Mysuru Lokayukta Police, in which a charge sheet has already been filed against him. The investigation is in progress. FSL report is required to be received. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

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

6. The work of grant of subsidy to the complainant was pending with accused Nos.1 and 2. It is alleged that the accused persons demanded a bribe of Rs.1,25,000/- for grant of subsidy. A trap was laid, during which, accused No.2 was found receiving Rs.1,15,000/- from the complainant, and a trap mahazar was drawn. The accused No.2 has been granted bail by this Court. The conversation recorded in the entrustment mahazar does not indicate any demand for bribe by this petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for petitioner would contend that, the charge sheet in Crime No.4/2022 of Mysore Lokayukta Police has been stayed by this Court in W.P No.18598/2025. The petitioner has undertaken to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life.

8. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has made a case for grant of bail with conditions.

In the result, the following:

ORDER i) The petition

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