Shri K M Narendra Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

SHRI K.M. NARENDRA KUMAR S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS, S/O MUNIYAPPA, OCC: SURVEYOR SUPERVISOR SLAO-1, KIADB, BENGALURU R/A: NO.177, 8^TH MAIN, CQAL LAYOUT, SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560092

¶11

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU BENCH BENGALURU - 560001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA SHETTY, SPL.P.P.)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (U/S 483 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.18/2025 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT LOKAYUKTA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(a) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (AMENDMENT ACT, 2018)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:20975 CRL.P No. 8036 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 23^RD ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE PCA, BENGALURU.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Accused in Crime No.18/2025 registered by Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending on the file of XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru, is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS seeking regular bail.

¶25

Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶26

FIR in Crime No.18/2025 was registered by Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru City division, for the aforesaid offence against the petitioner herein based on the first information dated 22.04.2025 received from Sri. V. Ravi Venkateshappa, S/o Venkateshappa. In the trap that was laid subsequently on 05.06.2025, the petitioner was allegedly

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20975 CRL.P No. 8036 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

caught red-handed while receiving bribe amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the de-facto complainant. The bribe amount which was recovered from the petitioner was seized under a panchanama and subsequently, the petitioner herein was arrested and produced before the Trial Court and remanded to judicial custody. His bail application filed before the Trial Court in Crime No.18/2025 was rejected on 11.06.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶30

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the petitioner is a public servant and therefore, there cannot be any apprehension that he would flee away from justice. He has cooperated with the investigating officer and his custody is no more required. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent who has filed statement of objections has opposed the petition. He submits that huge amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been recovered in the present case and the petitioner who was serving as Survey Superintendent of KIADB has made a demand for

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:20975 CRL.P No. 8036 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

payment of bribe for the purpose of signing the survey report. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶36

In the first information dated 21.04.2025, which was submitted on 22.04.2025 by the de-facto complainant, he had stated that the lands belonging to his mother-in-law Smt. Shakuntalamma were acquired for the purpose of a Housing Cooperative Society and the same was surveyed at his request by one Smt. Nethravathi on 07.02.2024, but the survey report was not signed by the petitioner, who was the competent authority. The de-facto complainant was asked to meet the petitioner and when de-facto complainant met the petitioner, a demand was made for payment of illegal gratification, which was fixed at Rs.1,50,000/- after negotiations. It is alleged that the conversation between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant was recorded and subsequently, the de-facto complainant had approached the Lokayukta police and based on his first information, FIR has been registered against the petitioner in the present case. In the trap that was allegedly held on 05.06.2025, the petitioner was caught red-handed while receiving bribe from the de-facto complainant. The major

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20975 CRL.P No. 8036 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

portion of the investigation in a trap case is completed on the date of trap itself. The bribe amount recovered has been subjected to panchanama and all procedural aspects have been completed on the date of trap itself. Since the petitioner is a public servant, there cannot be any apprehension that he would flee away from justice. The maximum punishment for the aforesaid offence is imprisonment for seven years. Therefore, I am of the opinion that prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is to be answered in the affirmative.

¶40

7. Accordingly, the following:-

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is allowed . The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.18/2025 registered by Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending on the file of XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions:

¶43

a) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20975 CRL.P No. 8036 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶47

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶48

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶49

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶50

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶51

PMR

¶52

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13

Shri K M Narendra Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri K M Narendra Kumar v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rama N Vs State of Karnataka

Nawaz Vs State of Karnataka

Shakih Khan Alias Saqib Alias Starboy Shakib Vs State by Hebbala Police Station

Shri Vinesh S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Naveen Kumar N Vs State by K.R.Puram P.S.

Sri. Sathisha. H. S. Vs State of Karnataka by