A co-accused acting as a mediator (go-between) is entitled to bail on the principle of parity if the primary accused, who received the bribe, has already been granted bail, provided the allegations are similar in nature.

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.14/2026 REGISTERED BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA P.S., BENGALURU CITY P.S. BENGALURU CITY FOR AN OFFNECE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7a AND 7b OF P.C ACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS') for enlargement of bail in Crime No.14/2026 registered by the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act') pending trial before the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge (P.C Act) Bengaluru (CCH No.24).

2. Briefly stated that the case of the prosecution was that the complainant had purchased a site bearing survey No.90 measuring 30 square feet X 50 square feet in an auction held on 11.06.2024. The complainant claimed that accused No.2 visited his site and advised him to pay the arrears of property tax to make out the khata of the aforesaid property in his name. Later, the complainant met accused No.2, who laid a demand for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-, which purportedly included the "Revenue Inspector's fees". The complainant then met one of his acquaintances Mr.Arun and requested him to inform accused No.2 to reduce the demand. Accordingly, Mr.Arun purportedly spoke to accused No.2 and informed the complainant to meet accused No.2. In the meanwhile, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.51,005/- on 21.02.2026 through online. Later, on 24.02.2026 he telephoned the petitioner, who informed the complainant to meet accused No.2. The complainant thereafter claimed that he spoke to Mr.Arun and thereafter, met the petitioner, who finally settled the demand at a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Accused No.2 telephoned him and demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- apart from the arrears of the property tax. Later on the same day, the complainant telephoned accused No.2 asking him whether any notice of demand was generated. Accused No.2 informed him that no notice was generated and if generated, the complainant will end up paying the entire arrears of the property tax.

3. On 27.03.2026, the complainant telephoned Mr.Arun, who put the petitioner on a conference call and the petitioner laid a demand for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and asked him to pay the said amount to Mr.Arun. He claimed that all the conversations between him, accused No.2 and accused No.1 were recorded on his mobile phone, which he downloaded it on a pen drive and handed it over to the respondent, who registered Crime No.14/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7(b) of the PC Act. Accused No.2, who purportedly demanded a bribe of Rs.11,00,000/- and received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant was arrested and he was released on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.6278/2026. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the release would embolden the petitioner to influence material witnesses and threaten the informant. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when accused No.2, the person who laid a demand for the bribe and collected was released on bail, the petitioner is entitled to be treated on par. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is not the one responsible for effecting the khata of the property in question in the name of the complainant and therefore, the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence is remote. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation is already completed and the charge sheet is ready to be filed and therefore, no further investigation is necessary and hence, the continuation of the petitioner in custody is unwarranted.

5. Per contra,