Karnataka High Court
Chethan Kumar S S vs State By Karnataka Lokayukta on 2 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:12767
CRL.P No. 2460 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2460 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. CHETHAN KUMAR S S
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
PSI, TUMKURU RURAL
POLICE STATION
KARNATAKA - 572 101.
...PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by
SREEDHARAN (BY SRI. KIRAN S JAVALI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
BANGALORE
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI SRI. ROHITH S V, ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of AND:
Karnataka
1. STATE BY
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
TUMKURU DIVISION
(REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:12767
CRL.P No. 2460 of 2026
HC-KAR
LOKAYUKTA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MANISH R, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483
BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE ACCUSED/ PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA TUMKUR DIVISION P.S. IN
CR.NO.01/2026 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 7(a) OF THE
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2018, WHICH
IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPECIAL JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:12767
CRL.P No. 2460 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for Regular Bail in Crime No.001/2026 filed by respondent - Police for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short P.C Act).
Factual matrix of the case:
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant was in the habit of roaming along with his friend to different places on weekends. On 17.01.2026, he went along with his friend to Tumkur. When he was coming back, he had parked his car near teashop to have a cup of tea. The officials of Tumkur Rural Police Station have arrested the friends of the complainant and taken the car to the police station.
3. It is further stated that the petitioner herein after having received the illegal gratification from the friends of the complainant released them. Thereafter, he had insisted the owner of the car, who is the complainant, to come near the police station to have a talk to release the vehicle. However, the complainant after consulting the advocate went to the police station to negotiate the matter.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:12767 CRL.P No. 2460 of 2026 HC-KAR
4. It is further stated that the complainant was asked to pay illegal gratification of Rs.5,00,000/- to release the car without registering any case. However, the complainant was not happy about the demand made by the petitioner. Hence, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police. The respondent police after registering the case, laid the trap and an amount of Rs.40,000/- was recovered from the cashier of Namaste Tumkur Hotel. The respondent police after recovering the amount, conducted investigation. During investigation, the petitioner has been arrested and he is in judicial custody. Hence, this petition.
5. Heard Sri. Kiran S Javali, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. Rohith S.V., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Manish R., learned counsel appearing for Sri. B.B. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent.
6. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, the respondent - Police are stated to have seized the amount of Rs.40,000/- from one person who is said to be the cashier of Namaste Tumkur Hotel. However, the petitioner is not responsible nor instructed the cashier of the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:12767 CRL.P No. 2460 of 2026 HC-KAR said hotel to receive the amount. In fact, the cashier of the hotel has not been arrayed as one of the accused in the FIR.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner was working as Police Sub-Inspector at Tumakuru Rural Police Station, Tumakuru, and he is aged about 34 years. The entire family is depending on the income of the petitioner, the petitioner is the well-reputed person and having a deep root in the society. In case, if, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will abide the conditions imposed by this Court. Making such submissions learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
8. Per Contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent vehemently submits that, a trap was laid, amount of Rs.40,000/- was recovered from the cashier of Namaste Tumkur Hotel, the said cashier had been instructed to receive the amount. Accordingly, amount of Rs.40,000/- was recovered. The petitioner was arrested. When there is a clear proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, leniency cannot be given to the petitioner in order to gain the confidence of the public at large.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:12767 CRL.P No. 2460 of 2026 HC-KAR
9. It is further submitted that while considering the bail application, Courts are bound to see the nature of the offence and also the impact on the society at large. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail great hardship would be caused to the society at large. Therefore, the petition has to be dismissed. Making such submissions, learned Special Public Prosecutor prays to reject the petition.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the complaint, it appears that, the complainant has lodged a complaint stating that he was asked to pay illegal gratification of Rs.5,00,000/- to release the vehicle wherein the petitioner has seized and kept in his custody. It is further noticed here that, the said amount had been scaled down to Rs.40,000/- and he was instructed to give the money to the cashier of Namaste Tumkur Hotel. However, the matter needs further investigation in respect of demand and acceptance. Prima facie, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case to grant him bail.
11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: -7-
NC: 2026:KHC:12767 CRL.P No. 2460 of 2026 HC-KAR ORDER i. This Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The petitioner is enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety to the like sum of the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
iii. The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence till disposal of the present case.
iv. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates, without fail.
v. The petitioner shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.
In case any of the conditions mentioned above is violated by the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to take appropriate steps for cancellation of the bail.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM