-
by sayum
04 July 2026 5:27 AM
"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 bail needs to be answered affirmatively." High Court of Karnataka, in a significant ruling dated July 1, 2026, held that police officers accused of bribery are entitled to regular bail when the investigation is substantially complete and they have no prior criminal history.
A single-judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty observed that while the apprehension of witness tampering exists, it can be mitigated through stringent bail conditions rather than continued incarceration.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Chikkaballapura, against an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Accused No. 1) and a Police Sub-Inspector (Accused No. 2). The complainant alleged that the officers demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,00,000, later negotiated to Rs. 70,000, to process a "B-Final Report" in two criminal cases filed against him. During a trap conducted on March 4, 2026, the bribe amount was recovered from the storage box of a scooter belonging to Accused No. 2.
The primary question before the court was whether the petitioners, who are serving police officers, were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The court was also called upon to determine if the nature of the recovery and the progress of the investigation warranted continued judicial custody under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Allegations Distinguished Between Accused Persons
The Court took note of the petitioners' submission that the demand for the bribe was primarily attributed to Accused No. 2. Regarding Accused No. 1, the bench observed that there were no specific allegations concerning the demand or receipt of the bribe amount. This distinction played a role in assessing the individual culpability of the officers during the bail stage.
Recovery From Scooter Box vs. Personal Search
The bench highlighted the factual circumstance that the bribe amount of Rs. 70,000 was recovered from the storage box of a scooter and not from the person of the accused. The petitioners argued that as of the date of the FIR, no work related to the complainant was actually pending, as the "B-Final Report" had already been forwarded to higher authorities.
Investigation Status and Cooperation of Accused
The court found that the major portion of the investigation had already been completed. It was noted that the Lokayukta police had already recorded the conversations and forwarded voice samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The respondent's counsel admitted that except for the FSL report, all other investigative steps were finished.
Court Notes Petitioners' Cooperation and Lack of Antecedents
The bench emphasized that the petitioners, despite being police officers, did not have any previous criminal records. It was observed that the accused had cooperated with the Investigating Officer throughout the proceedings and had voluntarily surrendered before being remanded to judicial custody.
Sentence Threshold and Bail Conditions
The Court observed that the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act carries a maximum punishment of seven years of imprisonment. The bench held that the concerns raised by the prosecution regarding the potential for tampering with witnesses could be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate conditions rather than denying liberty.
Allowing the petitions, the High Court directed that the officers be enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each. The Court mandated that the petitioners appear regularly for hearings, refrain from threatening witnesses, and remain within the trial court's jurisdiction unless permitted otherwise.
Date of Decision: 01 July 2026
