The High Court of Karnataka has granted regular bail to Dayeen Banu B.M., an advocate who was taken into judicial custody following allegations of soliciting money from a client under the false pretext of bribing a sitting judge to secure bail for the client’s son. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, presiding over the matter, allowed the petition after evaluating the submissions regarding the ongoing investigation and the established precedents governing the grant of bail for offenses punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years.

The case, registered at the Vidhana Soudha Police Station in Bengaluru, involves serious charges under Sections 318(4), 79, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner demanded funds on the basis that the money was required to influence the judicial process. While the investigation remains ongoing against the petitioner, the state clarified that the charge sheet had already been filed against two other co-accused individuals who were previously granted bail by the lower court and a coordinate bench of the High Court, respectively.

Allegations of Judicial Influence Peddling

According to the complaint, the petitioner demanded amounts totaling over one lakh rupees from a litigant, claiming that the sitting judge presiding over a bail application for the litigant's son required the payment. The prosecution emphasized the gravity of these claims, asserting that the conduct constituted severe professional misconduct. The Additional State Public Prosecutor informed the court that the incident has triggered parallel proceedings before the Bar Council, where a formal complaint regarding professional misconduct is currently pending.

During the hearing, the prosecution expressed concerns that the petitioner’s release could lead to the tampering of evidence, interference with witnesses, or the commission of similar offenses. However, the defense maintained that the content of the complaint lacked evidence of the petitioner actually receiving or retaining the alleged bribe amount. Furthermore, the defense highlighted that the petitioner had no prior criminal history and that the arrest had been conducted without strictly adhering to the notice requirements set forth under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as outlined in judicial precedents such as the Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar ruling.

Judicial Scrutiny and Bail Criteria

Justice Hegde acknowledged the serious nature of the accusations but maintained a focus on the procedural necessity of the petitioner's continued detention. The court noted that because the maximum penalty for the alleged offenses is seven years of imprisonment, the legal threshold for granting bail remained focused on the necessity of custodial interrogation. The court observed that the investigating agency had already secured relevant call details and telephonic recordings between the petitioner and the complainant, which significantly mitigated the requirement for further custodial retention.

In a poignant observation regarding the integrity of the judicial system, the court remarked: “Before parting, without reflecting anything on the merits of the prosecution case and the defence of the petitioner, the Court must observe that in case the alleged incident had taken place, it is one of the most unfortunate things to happen as such conduct amounts to highest form of professional misconduct on the part of the advocate. Such an act tarnishes the name of the Judge as well as the institution.” Despite these findings, the court held that the settled legal position regarding bail in similar non-capital offenses favored the petitioner’s release, provided that strict conditions were met.

Strict Conditions for Release

The court’s order mandates several conditions to ensure the integrity of the ongoing investigation. Dayeen Banu B.M. is required to execute a personal bond of ₹3,00,000 along with two solvent sureties of equivalent value to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The petitioner must remain in active cooperation with all ongoing inquiries and is explicitly prohibited from contacting, threatening, or inducing any witnesses or persons acquainted with the facts of the case.

Furthermore, the petitioner is obligated to provide her current address and an active mobile number to the jurisdictional police and must report any change in these details within 48 hours. To monitor her movements, the court restricted the petitioner from leaving the jurisdiction of Bengaluru and Mysuru without providing prior intimation to the local police authorities. The petitioner is also barred from committing any further offenses during the duration of her bail.

With the order for release finalized, the focus of the case now shifts back to the trial court, where the investigation will continue to proceed under the oversight of the jurisdictional authorities. The grant of bail serves as an interim measure, with the judicial process expected to resolve the merits of the allegations against the petitioner as the legal proceedings move forward. The court's decision reflects the delicate balance between maintaining the severity of potential professional malpractice and adhering to constitutional protections regarding personal liberty during the pendency of a criminal trial. The petitioner is expected to comply with all stipulated terms to remain at liberty throughout the investigation period.