Allowed

Smt Shilpa. M. v. State Represented by the Karnataka Lokayukta

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2026CRL.P/16568/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Engineer in BBMP sought anticipatory bail in a Lokayukta corruption case involving alleged misappropriation of Rs.250 crores. Noting no specific allegation against her, no criminal antecedents, and offences not carrying life imprisonment, the court granted anticipatory bail with conditions including periodic appearance before the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; release on bail upon arrest on bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, subject to conditions.

Smt Shilpa. M. Vs State Represented by the Karnataka Lokayukta — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:3770 CRL.P No. 16568 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16568 OF 2025 (438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT SHILPA. M. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O SOMANNA ASSISTANT ENGINEER OFFICE AT OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONAL OFFICE, BBMP RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. UIDAI No. 560161425387

¶9

PERMANENT ADDRESS: No.341, HOSAHALLI MANDYA, HOSAHALLI KARNATAKA – 571 417.

¶10

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

¶11

(BY SRI ROHIT K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE REPRESENTED BY THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BENGALURU URBAN DIVISION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:3770 CRL.P No. 16568 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 Cr.PC (FILED UNDER SECTION 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER / 4^TH ACCUSED IN CR.No.55/2025 PENDING BEFORE THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE (P.C.ACT) BENGALURU REGISTERED BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BENGALURU URBAN DIVISION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 13(1)(a) R/W 13(2) OF THE P.C ACT AND SEC.120B,409,419,420,417 OF IPC.

¶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.4 under Section 482 of BNSS praying to grant anticipatory bail in Crime No.55/2025 of Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station Bangalore registered for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120B, 409, 419, 420 and 417 of IPC.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3770 CRL.P No. 16568 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

¶29

that the complaint has been made on 02.09.2020 and the file has been registered on 06.11.2025 and there is huge delay of more than 05 years in registering the case. The petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in BBMP. There is no role of this petitioner in carrying out the work and misappropriation. The petitioner is woman and she undertakes to appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called and co-operate with the investigation. The allegations in the complaint are general in nature. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. With this, he prays to allow for petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that earlier complaint was made to ACB and subsequently after ACB was abolished documents were transferred to the Lokayuktha. Now, the case has been registered by the Lokayuktha, which caused delay in registering the case. There was raid on the premises of the petitioner and documents were collected. The alleged incidents have been

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:3770 CRL.P No. 16568 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

done during pandemic and amount involved is

¶35

Rs.250.00crores. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

¶36

Having heard learned counsels, the Court has

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

“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

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:3770 CRL.P No. 16568 of 2025

¶41

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

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 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.”

¶44

The petitioner is similarly placed to that of accused in the said petition. The petitioner is woman and undertaken to cooperate in the investigation and abide by 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 any criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has made out case for grant of anticipatory bail with conditions.

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:3770 CRL.P No. 16568 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

In the result, the following

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The petition is allowed.

¶50

ii) The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No. Crime No.55/2025 of Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station Bangalore registered for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120B, 409, 419, 420 and 417 of IPC subject to following conditions:

¶51

a) The petitioner -accused No.4 shall voluntarily appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from this day and execute bail bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:3770 CRL.P No. 16568 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

b) The petitioner -accused No.4 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.4 shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation.

¶58

d) The petitioner -accused No.4 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶59

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶60

DSP

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 Ct.sm

Smt Shilpa. M. v. State Represented by the Karnataka Lokayukta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shilpa. M. v. State Represented by the Karnataka Lokayukta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran Andrew Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt D v Sumangala Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Pavan Kumar.M Vs State of Karnataka

Devappa Vs State of Karnataka

Gangadhara B H Vs State by Excise Sub-Inspector

Mr Vithalanaiak Vs State by Rural Police Station