Ms. Jagadevi Bhimashankar Salotagi Vs the State of Karnataka

MS. JAGADEVI BHIMASHANKAR SALOTAGI D/O. MR. BHIMASHANKAR SALOTAGI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT No.27, 4^TH CROSS PRASHANT NAGAR, OPP. TO CHILDREN AND WOMEN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVANAHALLI TOWN DEVANAHALLI – 562 110.

¶10

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI HALASHETTI JAGADISH SIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE BENGALURU URBAN DIVISION BENGALURU -560 001. REP BY ITS SPL.P.P.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 Cr.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT - LOKAHUKTA POLICE BENGALURU URBAN DIVISION TO RELEASE HER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42035 CRL.P No. 13966 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ARREST IN CR.No.45/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(A) OF P.C. ACT 1988, PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE (P.C. ACT) BENGALURU CCH.NO.24 AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No.1 under Section 482 of BNSS praying to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.45/2025 of Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bangalore Urban Division registered for offence punishable under Section 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶26

learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶28

contend that the petitioner is working as a woman PSI in Devanhalli Police Station. There is an allegation of demand

¶29

of bribe by the petitioner from the complainant. The said

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42035 CRL.P No. 13966 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

allegation of demand of bribe is on 30.07.2025 and complaint has been filed on 03.09.2025 and there is a delay in filing the complaint. Accused Nos.2 and 3, who are police constables have been granted regular bail by the trial Court. In the trap cases, major portion of the investigation will be over on the date of trap, except receiving the FSL report. The presence of the petitioner is required only for collection of voice sample and not for any custodial interrogation. The petitioner is a woman having a family to look after. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation and abide by terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. With these, he prays to allow the petition and grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the conversation between the petitioner and the complainant has been recorded by the complainant prior to filing of the complaint in her mobile and that has been reduced in the writing in entrustment

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42035 CRL.P No. 13966 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

mahazar, which clearly discloses demand of bribe by the petitioner for filing a charge sheet wherein the complainant is a first informant in the POCSO case. On the date of trap, there is a phone conversation between the petitioner and the complainant and that has been recorded and it is reduced into writing in the pre-trap mahazar itself indicates that there is a demand of bribe and handing of bribe amount to accused No.3. The voice sample of the petitioner is required for examination to tally with the voice in the conversation recorded and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The petitioner is absconding since last 02 months. Learned counsel placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs State of Punjab¹ would contend that in cases of corruption, the anticipatory bails are required to be granted in exceptional circumstances and not in a casual manner. He further submits that the presence of the petitioner is required for

¶37

1 Reported in (2025) 4 SCC 493

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:42035 CRL.P No. 13966 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

investigation. With these, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶42

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has

¶43

perused FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

¶44

Based on the complaint of one Smt. Bhavyashree, a case came to be registered against the petitioner and another in Crime No. 45/2025 of Karnataka Lokaytha Police Station for offence punishable under Section 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The said complaint is dated 03.09.2025. As per averments of the said complaint, the petitioner is stated to have demanded bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- on 03.07.2025 from the said complainant for filing a charge sheet in the case wherein the complainant was the victim's mother. Pursuant to the said complaint pre-trap /entrustment mahazar has been drawn. There is a conversation between complainant and the petitioner recorded by the

¶45

- 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42035 CRL.P No. 13966 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

complainant has been reduced into writing in the entrustment mahazar. Thereafter, trap has been laid wherein accused No.3 -police constable alleged to have received Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and he received at the instance of the petitioner. On perusal of the statement of the said accused No.3, there is no allegation against this petitioner of instructing him to receive any bribe from the complainant. In cases of trap, major portion of the investigation will be over on the date of trap. The presence of the accused person is required for collection of voice sample. The petitioner is a woman working as a woman PSI and her presence can be secured easily for investigation and trial. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner has undertaken to co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation and abide by terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. Considering the said aspects, the petitioner has made out case for grant of anticipatory bail with conditions.

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:42035 CRL.P No. 13966 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

In the result, the following

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i) The petition is allowed.

¶54

ii) The petitioner –accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest in a Crime No.45/2025 of Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Station, Bangalore Urban Division registered for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 subject to following conditions;

¶55

a) The petitioner –accused No.1 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from this day and execute a bail bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42035 CRL.P No. 13966 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

b) The petitioner –accused No.1 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation. c) The petitioner –accused No.1 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. d) The petitioner –accused No.1 shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶59

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶60

DSP

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 Ct.sm

Ms. Jagadevi Bhimashankar Salotagi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Jagadevi Bhimashankar Salotagi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sendil Kumar @ Sendhil Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Farida Begum Vs State of Karnataka

Thangamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sanjay Kumar a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C N Kalyan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ajay Kumar Vs State by Bangalore Rural Women'S Police Station