Savitha H N Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2026)

Savitha H N Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both criminal petitions allowed; petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 enlarged on regular bail in Crime No.02/2026 of Lokayuktha Police, Tumakuru, on executing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to conditions (no threatening/tampering with witnesses, appearance on all hearing dates, no fresh criminal activity, co-operation with investigation till final report); liberty reserved to prosecution to move for cancellation on breach.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to be enlarged on regular bail in Crime No.02/2026 of Lokayuktha Police, Tumakuru, for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the said ambiguity, the Court held it appropriate to grant the relief prayed for and ordered the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.02/2026 on executing their personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Ratio / Principle

On going through the documents on record, the Court found that the alleged demand of Rs.6,000/- has not been made as illegal gratification and there is ambiguity in respect of the said demand.

Key takeaways

Bail was made subject to conditions: the petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses nor hamper court proceedings, shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates, shall not indulge in any criminal cases till disposal of the case, and shall co-operate with the investigation till filing of the final report; liberty was reserved to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail on violation of any condition.ratio¶88

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.7(a) – Lokayukta trap case (Crime No.02/2026, Tumakuru) – Accused No.1, a Government doctor, and Accused No.2, a Multi Task Assistant in the hospital, sought regular bail; prosecution alleged demand of Rs.6,000/- for providing a 'good and suitable lens' for the complainant's mother's cataract surgery though the lens was available free in the hospital, and recovery of the amount from Accused No.2 after a pre-trap panchanama; petitioners contended the money was thrust on Accused No.2 for purchase of a quality lens and there was no demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. Holding (S Rachaiah, J.): on the documents on record the alleged demand of Rs.6,000/- has not been made as illegal gratification and there is ambiguity as to the demand; accordingly both petitions allowed and accused Nos.1 and 2 enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each for the likesum, subject to conditions (non-tampering with witnesses, appearance on all dates, no fresh offences, co-operation with investigation), with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail on violation. (Order dated 08-04-2026)

NC: 2026:KHC:19577 CRL.P No. 4805 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4875 of 2026

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4805 OF 2026

(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS))

C/W

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4875 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

SAVITHA H N D/O NARASIMHANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT ASHOKA NAGARA WARD-1 VIJAYAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL – 562 135

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.2, GOVT. DOCTORS QUARTERS, SIRA GOVT. HOSPITAL PREMISES, SIRA – 572 137

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K B K SWAMY., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE, TUMKUR

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19577 CRL.P No. 4805 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4875 of 2026

HC-KAR

REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY., SPL.PP)

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ENLARGE HER ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME.NO.2/2026 REGISTERED BY THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, TUMAKURU, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7(A) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT TUMAKURU.

IN CRL.P No.4875/2026

BETWEEN:

MANOJ E

S/O ESHWARAIAH.D, R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, HULIKUNTE HOBLI, YEDALADAKU POST, SIRA TALUK,

NC: 2026:KHC:19577 CRL.P No. 4805 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4875 of 2026

3 -

HC-KAR

TUMAKURU – 572 135.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. GADEKAR NAGARAJ BABU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE, TUMKUR

REPRESENTED BY

SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY., SPL.PP)

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.2/2026 REGISTERED BY THE KARNATAKA LOLAYUKTHA POLICE, TUMAKURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 7(a) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19577 CRL.P No. 4805 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4875 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1

and 2 are before this Court seeking regular bail in Crime No.02/2026 of respondent-police for the offence under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act, 2018).

Brief facts of the case :

The case of the prosecution is that

Smt.Mangalamma aged about 60 years was suffering from vision impairment in her left eye and she was required to undergo surgery. Owing to the financial constraints, the complainant approached Tumkuru District Government Hospital on 21.02.2026 and the complainant was advised to approach the petitioner. The complainant had approached the petitioner along with his mother. The petitioner after conducting examination of his mother, opined that his mother required surgery. It is further stated that to fix suitable and good lens, Rs.6,000/- was to be paid. However, the complainant was not willing to pay the said amount. Hence, he lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police. A pre-trap panchanama was

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19577 CRL.P No. 4805 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4875 of 2026

HC-KAR

conducted and later, the complainant along with a shadow witness went to the spot and he was waiting to meet the petitioner/accused No.1. However, accused No.2 called the name of his mother. Then the complainant approached the accused No.2 and it is alleged that amount of Rs.6,000/- has been paid as illegal gratification to accused No.2. The said amount has been recovered from accused No.2 and the case has been registered against both accused Nos.1 and 2. The investigation is under progress.

Heard Sri.K.B.K.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.4805/2026 and Sri.Gadekar Nagaraj Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.4875/2026 and Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, learned Special PP for the respondent-State.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respective petitioners that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences. In fact, the complainant with a malafide intention has lodged a false complaint to implicate the petitioners in a baseless and false case.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19577 CRL.P No. 4805 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4875 of 2026

HC-KAR

It is further submitted that the petitioners with a bonafide intention and due to the request made by the complainant, received an amount of Rs.6,000/- for the purpose of implanting the lens to the eye of the mother of the complainant. There is no demand nor acceptance of illegal gratification as alleged in the complaint.

It is further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case with a malafide intention. The petitioner/accused No.1 is a reputed Doctor and she is working for the welfare of the poor people. The petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is also working as Multi Task Assistant. In fact, the complainant himself thrusted the amount to accused No.2 and asked him to bring good quality lens. Later, he had informed the Lokayukta Police alleging that the petitioners have demanded illegal gratification to purchase the lens, which is false and baseless. Therefore, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. They will abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court in the event of their release on bail. Therefore, they may be enlarged on bail.

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:19577 CRL.P No. 4805 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4875 of 2026

HC-KAR

Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petitions.

Per contra , learned Special Counsel for respondent-

State vehemently submitted that the petitioners being Government Officials had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.6,000/- on the pretext of purchasing lens for the cataract surgery to be conducted on the mother of the complainant. However, the amount ought not to have been demanded as the said lens was available in the hospital on free of cost. Therefore, the respondent-Police have rightly registered a case and conducting the investigation. The investigation is under progress. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant any relief as prayed for. Making such submissions, learned HCGP prays to reject the petition.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the complaint. It appears that complainant was working as an Auto Driver and his mother was suffering from eyesight problem. She was taken to Narayana Hospital, Bengaluru, there she has been identified and diagnosed that she needs cataract surgery. Therefore, the

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:19577 CRL.P No. 4805 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4875 of 2026

HC-KAR

complainant was advised to admit his mother. However, the complainant being unable to bear the expenditure to be incurred for the purpose of surgery. Hence, he opted to approach the Government Hospital. Accordingly, he approached the petitioner/accused No.1 and requested her to conduct surgery to his mother.

On going through the documents available on records, it appears that accused No.1/petitioner demanded Rs.6,000/- for the purpose of providing good and suitable lens stating that such lens was not available in the hospital. However, the complainant had approached the respondent/Police. Later, the amount was recovered from accused No.2, who is working as Multi Task Staff in the hospital.

Be that as it may, on going through the documents available on record, it appears that the alleged demand of Rs.6,000/- has not been made as illegal gratification and there is ambiguity in respect of the said demand. Having considered the said ambiguity, it is appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for in these petitions.

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:19577 CRL.P No. 4805 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4875 of 2026

HC-KAR

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petitions are allowed.

(ii) The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to be enlarged on bail in No.02/2026 of respondent-police for the offence under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act, 2018), on executing their personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(iii) The petitioners shall not threaten or

tamper with the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

NC: 2026:KHC:19577 CRL.P No. 4805 of 2026 C/W CRL.P No. 4875 of 2026

10 -

HC-KAR

(v) The petitioners shall not indulge in any

criminal cases till disposal of the case.

(vi) The petitioners shall co-operate with

the investigation till filing of final report.

In case, the petitioners violate any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

NR/-

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78