Shivanand S/O. Hanumathappa vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shivanand, a Commercial Tax Officer (GST), is seeking regular bail. He was arrested on March 29, 2025, in connection with Lokayukta Police Station Hospete Crime No. 1/2025, registered for an offense under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A complaint was lodged by Dugganaik alleging an illegal demand by the petitioner for completing official work. A trap was laid, and Rs. 4,000/- in tainted currency was recovered from the petitioner's custody. The color test was positive. The petitioner's earlier attempt to obtain bail from the Special Judge was rejected. He has been suspended from service. The petitioner has approached the High Court under Section 483 of the BNSS.
Held
The Court allowed the criminal petition and directed the petitioner's enlargement on bail. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was arrested on March 29, 2025, and the tainted currency and relevant documentary evidence had already been seized by the investigating agency. The investigation had also progressed to a considerable extent. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had been suspended from service. Considering these factors, the Court was of the considered opinion that the continuation of the accused in judicial custody was no longer warranted. The Court also stated that other apprehensions of the prosecution could be addressed by imposing suitable and stringent conditions. The bail was granted on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions including not tampering with witnesses, attending court regularly, marking attendance before the Investigating Officer on every third Sunday until the final report, and not leaving the jurisdiction of Ballari and Vijayanagara Districts without prior permission. Violation of any condition would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner, Shivanand, a Commercial Tax Officer (GST), is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail in connection with Lokayukta P.S. Hospete Crime No. 1/2025, registered for an offense punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended Act 2018)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, through his counsel, sought grant of bail by exercising the special powers vested in the High Court under Section 483 of the BNSS. The petitioner's counsel argued that the investigation had progressed considerably, tainted currency and documentary evidence had been seized, and the petitioner had been suspended from service, thus continuation in judicial custody was no longer warranted. Respondent's Argument: The Karnataka Lokayukta, through its counsel, opposed the bail grounds. No specific arguments or reliance on provisions, circulars, or precedents were recorded for the respondent.
Sections Cited
Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 483 of BNSS
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
Petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS with the following prayer: “Praying to allow the Criminal Petition and Enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on Regular Bail in connections with Lokayukta P.S. Lokayukta Police Station Hosapete Crime No. 1/2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sec.7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Amended Act 2018) on the file of learned 3rd Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge (P.C.Act) Ballari sitting at Hosapete.”
Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:
1 A complaint came to be lodged by Dugganaik S/o. Laxman Nayak registered by the Lokayukta Police, Hospete in Crime No.1/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended Act 2018). NC: 2025:KHC-D:7085
2 Pursuant to the complaint, Lokayukta Police formed a raid team to trap the petitioner in respect of the illegal demand made by him for completing the work of the complainant.
3 Trap was successful and a sum of Rs.4,000/- which was tainted currency was recovered from the custody of the petitioner. Color test stood positive and petitioner was arrested. He was sent to judicial custody on 29.03.2025. 3.4 Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail is rejected by the learned Special Judge. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court.
Sri S.S. Sondur learned counsel for the petitioner sought for grant of bail by exercising the special power vested in this Court under Section 483 of BNSS.
Sri Anil Kale, learned counsel for the Karnataka Lokayukta would oppose the bail grounds. NC: 2025:KHC-D:7085
Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
On such perusal of the material on record, since the petitioner was arrested on 29.03.2025 and tainted currency and relevant documentary evidence have already seized by the Investigation Agency and investigation is also progressed to considerable extent and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been suspended from the service, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the accused in judicial custody is no longer warranted.
Other apprehensions of the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent and conditions.
Accordingly, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. NC: 2025:KHC-D:7085 (ii) Petitioner is directed to be in enlarged on bail on taking a bond in a sum Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (iii) Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (iv) Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly. (v) Petitioner shall mark the attendance before the Investigating Officer on every third Sunday between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm. till the final report is filed. (vi) Petitioner shall not leave the juri iction of Ballari and Vijayanagara Districts without prior permission. Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail. (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
KAV,NAA CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.