Sri Sharanappa Kalappa Bellundagi Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI VENKATESH T S/O OBANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS ASST. SUB-INSPECTOR AT CHIKKABALLAPUR RURAL P.S NOW R/AT NO.4, WARD 5 POLICE QUATRAS, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT AND TALUK - 562 101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM, SR. ADV., FOR SRI SUYOG HERELE E, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA CKB P.S, REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, M.S BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 01.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI LETHIF B, ADV.)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO. 02/2026/CKB DATED 03/03/2026 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 KARNATAKA-LOKAYUKTA-CHIKKABALLAPURA PS, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(a) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (AS AMENDED IN 2018)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:32745 CRL.P No. 4443 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4011 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LD. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHICKBALLAPURA COURT.

¶22

IN CRL.P NO. 4011/2026:

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SRI SHARANAPPA KALAPPA BELLUNDAGI S/O KALAPPA BELLUNDAGI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WORKING AS POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR R/OFF-KANNUR VIJAYAPURA KARNATAKA - 586 119 NOW R/AT NO.223/8 NEAR K.V CAMPUS GROUND VILLAGE-CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT AND TALUK - 562 101.

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM, SR. ADV. FOR SRI SUYOG HERELE E, ADV.)

¶27

AND:

¶28

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA-CKB P.S REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 01.

¶29

...RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SRI LETHIF B, ADV.)

¶31

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO DIRECT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.02/2026/CKB DATED 03.03.2026 REGISTERED BY - RESPONDENT NO.1 KARNATAKA - LOKAYUKTA CHIKKABALLAPURA PS, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S. 7(a) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (AS AMENDED IN 2018) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LD. PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT.

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32745 CRL.P No. 4443 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4011 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

1. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.2/2026 registered by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapur, for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment 2018), are before this Court in these two petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.

¶38

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

3. FIR in Crime No.2/2026 was registered by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapura, for the aforesaid offence against petitioners herein based on the first information dated 03.03.2026 received from the defacto complainant Raghavendra S/o Chowdappa. In the trap that was held subsequently, accused No.2 was apprehended and from the box of his scooter, bribe amount of Rs.70,000/- was recovered. Subsequently, accused No.1 was also apprehended and after arresting accused Nos.1 and 2, they were produced before the jurisdictional Court on 04.03.2026. On the said date, accused Nos.1 and 2 were granted interim bail subject to certain conditions and subsequently, vide order dated 09.03.2026,

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:32745 CRL.P No. 4443 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4011 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

their regular bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. It is under these circumstances, they have approached this Court in these two petitions.

¶44

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that alleged demand for payment of Rs.70,000/- as bribe for processing the B-Final Report in two criminal cases registered against the first informant is only as against accused No.2. There is no allegation as against accused No.1 either about demanding the bribe amount or receiving the same. He submits that recovery of the bribe amount is from the scooter of the accused No.2 and not from his person. He submits that accused Nos.1 and 2 have cooperated with the investigation officer and major portion of the investigation is already completed. Petitioners, who are police officers do not have criminal antecedents. He submits that as on the date of registration of FIR, no work relating to the first informant was pending with the accused persons and the B Final Report prepared was already forwarded by accused No.1 to the higher officers. He submits that this Court, considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, initially had granted some interim

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32745 CRL.P No. 4443 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4011 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

protection to the petitioners. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petitions.

¶48

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, who has filed his statement of objections submits that conversation of accused Nos.1 and 2 with the first informant has been recorded and their voice samples are now forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory and the report is awaited. He submits that since the accused persons are police officers, possibility of they tampering with the material prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled-out. Investigation of the case is still under progress. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petitions.

¶49

6. In the first information dated 03.03.2026, it is stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 had demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/from the first informant for the purpose of filing B-Final Report in the two criminal cases registered against him and the said demand was scaled down to Rs.70,000/- after negotiation. Since the first informant did not intend to pay the bribe amount to accused persons, he had approached the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapur. In the trap that was held on 04.03.2026 after registration of FIR in Crime No.2/2026, a sum

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:32745 CRL.P No. 4443 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4011 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

of Rs.70,000/- said to be the bribe amount was recovered from the box of the scooter belonging to accused No.2. Subsequently, accused No.2, who was apprehended at the spot was arrested and thereafter, accused No.1 was also arrested. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were produced before the jurisdictional Court on 04.03.2026. The learned Sessions Judge, on the said date, had granted interim bail to accused Nos.1 and 2 subject to certain conditions. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 had violated any one of the bail conditions imposed while granting interim bail by the jurisdictional Sessions Court.

¶53

7. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly submitted that except awaiting receipt of the report from Forensic Science Laboratory, all other investigation has been completed in the present case.

¶54

8. Considering the fact that the accused persons were granted interim bail by the learned Sessions Judge for a limited period and thereafter, their regular bail application was rejected, this Court vide order dated 13.03.2026 and 23.03.2026, had granted some interim protection to the

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:32745 CRL.P No. 4443 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4011 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

accused Nos.1 and 2 and a direction was issued to the respondent - police not to take any coercive action against them. It is not in dispute that even during the pendency of these petitions, accused Nos.1 and 2 have cooperated with the respondent - police for the purpose of investigation. Subsequently, the petitioners have voluntarily surrendered before the Investigation Officer and they were remanded to judicial custody.

¶59

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as on the date of registration of FIR, no work relating to the first informant was pending before accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶60

10. Be that as it may, the fact remains that accused Nos.1 and 2 do not have any other criminal antecedents. Major portion of the investigation is completed and the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the respondent can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions. The maximum punishment for the alleged offences is imprisonment for a period of seven years. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that prayer made by the petitioners for grant of regular

¶61

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:32745 CRL.P No. 4443 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4011 of 2026

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶64

The petitions are allowed . The petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.2/2026 registered by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Chikkaballapur, for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment 2018), subject to the following conditions:

¶65

a) Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶66

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

¶67

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

¶68

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

¶69

9 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:32745 CRL.P No. 4443 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4011 of 2026

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

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

¶73

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶74

DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Sri Sharanappa Kalappa Bellundagi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sharanappa Kalappa Bellundagi 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shreedhara T D Vs the State Karnataka

Sadiq Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ateeq @ Tinker Addu Vs State of Karnataka

Ayyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Gopinath Nagar Anthal Vs State by

Siddaraju Vs State by