Sri. N G Umesh Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION. M.S. BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI MANISH R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B B PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 Cr.PC (FILED UNDER SECTION 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10345 CRL.P No. 1148 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.No.55/2025 REGISTERED BY THE LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 9 BEFORE THE LEARNED XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-24) AT BANGALORE IN CRL. MISC. No.51/2026 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 13(1)(A) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (AMENDED ACT, 2018) AND SEC. 120B R/W 409, 419, 420 AND 417 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.

¶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 accused No.9 under Section 482 of BNSS praying to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.55/2025 of Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Station, Bengaluru registered for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120B, 419, 420 and 417 of IPC.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10345 CRL.P No. 1148 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶29

contend that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in BBMP. There is no role of this petitioner in carrying out the work and misappropriation. The petitioner is ready to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Accused Nos.1 to 4, 7 and 8 have been granted bail by this Court and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. With this, she prayed to allow the petition.

¶30

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent

¶31

would contend that the petitioner is having role in misappropriation alleged in the complaint. The petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer and work orders were issued during his tenure. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prays to reject the petition.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:10345 CRL.P No. 1148 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Having heard learned counsels, the Court has

¶36

perused FIR, complaint and other materials placed on the record.

¶37

This Court has considered the anticipatory bail petition of accused Nos.1 to 3, 7 and 8 in Criminal Petition No.16413/2025 in the order dated 09.01.2026 while allowing the said petition has observed as under:

¶38

“6. Complaint is dated 02.09.2020 and it is made by Member of Parliament to ACB. FIR has been registered on 06.11.2025 by Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru. It is contended by learned counsel for respondent that ACB was abolished and documents were transferred to the Lokayukta and therefore there is delay in registering the case. A perusal of page 3 of the complaint indicates that there is a mention that information was given to Lokayukta institution also in regard to the allegations made in the complaint. Considering the said aspect, it is clear that even the Lokayukta had information regarding the corruption made by the accused persons even prior to or on the date of complaint dated 02.09.2020. Even though names of petitioners are mentioned in the complaint, there is no specific

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10345 CRL.P No. 1148 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

allegation against them. The premises of the petitioners have been raided and documents were collected. Petitioners have undertaken to cooperate with the Investigating Agency and abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. The offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Petitioners are retired Chief Engineers and working Engineers and their presence can be secured easily for investigation and trial.”

¶42

Accused No.4 was working as Assistant Engineer has also been granted bail in Criminal Petition No.16568/2025 by order dated 02.01.2026. The petitioner was working in BBMP as Assistant Executive Engineer and he has retired on 30.06.2025. The petitioner is similarly placed to that of the other accused, who have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The petitioner has undertaken to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Considering the above

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:10345 CRL.P No. 1148 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

aspects, the petitioner has made out case for grant of anticipatory bail with conditions.

¶47

In the result, the following

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The petition is allowed.

¶50

ii) The petitioner –accused No.9 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.55/2025 of Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Station, Bengaluru subject to following conditions:

¶51

a) The petitioner –accused No.9 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from this day and execute bail bond for sum of Rs.1,00,000/with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer.

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:10345 CRL.P No. 1148 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

b) The petitioner –accused No.9 shall appear

¶56

before the Investigating Officer on first and third Sunday of every month for a period of 03 months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

¶57

c) The petitioner –accused No.9 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation.

¶58

d) The petitioner –accused No.9 shall not directly or indirectly make an inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such a facts to the court or police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶61

DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 Ct.sm

Sri. N G Umesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. N G Umesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Kumar. I. B. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshmi Vs Sri. Arogya Prasad

Sri Krishnappa @ Kitta Vs State of Karnataka

Siddeshwarachar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Jagadeesha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kumara H @ Kokku Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka