IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3221 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SRI K V RAJESH S/O. RAMAMURTHY AGED 43 YEARS R/AT 558, GURU KRUPA

9^TH B MAIN ROAD NEAR NEW TOWN PUBLIC SCHOOL Digitally signed by 1^ST STAGE, B SECTOR SREEDHARAN BANGALORE YELAHANKA NEW TOWN SUSHMA LAKSHMI BENGALURU 560 064 Location: High Court of …PETITIONER Karnataka (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MS BUILDING, DR BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B LETHIF, SPL.P.P.)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL WHO HAS BEEN ARRAYED AS ACCUSED IN CR.NO.05/2026 DTD 09.02.2026 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT/KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA PS, BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 7(a) OF THE PC ACT, 1988, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT CASES AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-24).

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.05/2026 of respondent - Karnataka Lokayukta Police for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending on the file of the learned XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act Cases at Bengaluru City (CCH-24).

The petitioner is seeking for regular bail.

Brief facts of the case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant was working as an Electric Contractor, and he filed an application on behalf of Mr.Deepak Prabhu for re-activation of RR No.HP3336-5HP and AEH6916-1KW concerning to the property bearing Khata No. 161 of Medahalli Village, Bidarahalli, Bangalore East, which was standing in the name of said Sri Deepak Prabhu.

3. It is alleged that on 30.01.2026, the petitioner has informed the Chief Engineer about the said issue, and it is alleged that the demand has been made by the present petitioner.

4. It is further alleged that on 04.02.2026, the complainant approached the AEE, E-11 Sub-Division, and thereafter, he had approached the present petitioner, who was working as Executive Engineer at Indiranagara Division, BESCOM, and enquired about the processing of the said application. On 05.02.2026, the Assistant Engineer recorded and prepared a field report and forwarded the same to the AEE for further process.

5. It is further alleged that the concerned AEE has forwarded the aforesaid reports along with instructions to change the name of the subscriber, to the Office of the Executive Engineer, Indiranagara Division. It is further alleged that the petitioner had demanded Rs.7,00,000/- to get the work done. The complainant disagreed with the said demand, thereafter, it has been reduced to Rs.3,00,000/-. As the complainant was not inclined to give such bribe, he had informed the jurisdictional Lokayuktha Police.

6. On 09.02.2026, after recording the pre-trap proceedings, a panchanama/mahazar was drawn. It is further alleged that the petitioner was caught red-handedly. Now, the petitioner is presently in judicial custody.

7. Heard Sri Prasanna Kumar P., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lathif B., learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for respondent - Lokayukta Police.

8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, there is no demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe/illegal gratification. In order to attract the ingredients of Section 7(a) of PC Act, demand and acceptance are sine-qua-non. However, in this case, the said demand is absent.