##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3530

CRL.P No. 100339 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100339 OF 2026

(439 OF CR.PC/483 OF BNSS)

BETWEEN:

T. DEVADAS S/O. T. NAGAPPA,

AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

R/O. C/O. T. NAGAPPA, #648, 3^RD CROSS,

SAIRAM BADAVANE, POST. CHITWADGI,

DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583211.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI BAHUBALI A. DANAWADE, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR,

Digitally signed

by KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, VIJAYANAGARA,

MALLIKARJUN

RUDRAYYA

KALMATH REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

Location: High

Court of HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-011.

Karnataka,

Dharwad Bench

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439

OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (U/S.483 OF

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023) PRAYING TO

ALLOW THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 483 OF

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 AND ENLARGE

THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3530

CRL.P No. 100339 of 2026

HC-KAR

NO.01/2026 OF HOSPETE LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION,

PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

AND SPECIAL JUDGE, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT, HOSAPETE,

FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(A) OF

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (AMENDMENT-2018)

AND ETC.,.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

Heard the arguments of Sri Bahubali Danawade,

learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri Santosh

B. Malagoudar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the

respondent Lokayukta.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

No.1 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused

No.1 on regular bail in Crime No.1/2026 of Hospete

Lokayukta Police Station, registered for the offence

punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment-2018), pending on the

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3530

CRL.P No. 100339 of 2026

HC-KAR

file of Principal District and Sessions and Special Judge,

Vijayanagara District, Hospete.

3. It is the case of prosecution as per the

complaint/entrustment panchanama and recovery

panchanama that that the complainant is a Class-I

Contractor and was successful tenderer for ₹82,00,000/-.

The complainant has performed his contract work and has

received first part of amount of ₹37,00,845/-. The balance

amount payable to the complainant is ₹41,89,000/-. Among

this amount, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was sanctioned by

the Government. For releasing of the said amount of

Rs.10,00,000/-, it is allegation that accused Nos.1 and 2

have demanded bribe of 10% of Rs.10,00,000/-, which is

amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. It is the case of prosecution

that at the instigation of accused No.1, accused No.2 being

accountant working in the office of accused No.1, had

instructed the complainant to give bribe of Rs.1,00,000/-.

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3530

CRL.P No. 100339 of 2026

HC-KAR

4. Accordingly, the complainant on 09.02.2022 at

01.00 p.m. went to the place of accused No.1 and handed

over currency notes of denomination of 500 of having

quantity of 200 by putting them inside a cover and handed

over to accused No.2. The lokayukta police have conducted

entrust panchanama and recovery panchanama, and after

raiding and seizing the currency notes from the possession

of accused No.2, the sodium permanganate solution was

turned into pink colour. Therefore, confirming this, crime

was registered against accused. It is the allegation against

accused No.1-petitioner that he has demanded the bribe

and accused No.2 by acting on behalf of accused No.1 has

received the amount. Both accused are in custody from

10.02.2026.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the

entire case of the petitioner is false. He has never

demanded any amount from the compl