[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Maruti S/O Fakeerappa Mangalapur vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 March, 2026

Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2026:KHC-D:3709
                                                       CRL.P No. 100354 of 2026


                        HC-KAR




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                           DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                                           BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100354 OF 2026
                                (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS)
                        BETWEEN:

                        MARUTI S/O. FAKEERAPPA MANGALAPUR,
                        AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: ACCOUNTANT,
                        PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD),
                        HOSAPETE, R/O. VALMIKI CIRCLE,
                        BHAGYANAGAR, TQ. & DIST. KOPPAL.
                                                                      ...PETITIONER
                        (BY SRI MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)

                        AND:

                        THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                        THROUGH VIJAYANAGARA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
                        REP. BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                        DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
                                                                   ...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
                        (BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
                             THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
                        OF THE CODE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (U/S.483 OF
                        BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE
                        PETITIONER/ACCUSED    NO.2   IN   CRIME   NO.1/2026 OF
                        LOKAYUKTA P.S. BALLARI DATED 20.02.2026, FOR THE
                        OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(a) OF THE
                        PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 (AS AMENDED IN
                        2018) ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
                        SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE VIJAYANAGARA DIST.
                        HOSAPETE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                                       -2-
                                                    NC: 2026:KHC-D:3709
                                            CRL.P No. 100354 of 2026


HC-KAR




    THIS PETITION COMING ON ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                               ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

Heard the arguments of Sri Hallikeri Mrutyunjay

Shivaputrayya, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.2

and Sri Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned Special Public

Prosecutor for the respondent/Lokayukta.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

No.2 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused

No.2 on regular bail in Crime No.1/2026 of Vijaynagara

Lokayukta Police Station, registered for the offence

punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment-2018), pending on the

file of Principal District and Sessions and Special Judge,

Vijayanagara District, Hospete.

3. It is the case of prosecution as per the

complaint/entrustment panchanama and recovery

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3709

HC-KAR

panchanama that that the complainant is a Class-I

Contractor and was successful tenderer for ₹82,00,000/-.

The complainant has performed his contract work and has

received first part of amount of ₹37,00,845/-. The balance

amount payable to the complainant is ₹41,89,000/-. Among

this amount, a sum of ₹10,00,000/- was sanctioned by the

Government. For releasing of the said amount of

₹10,00,000/-, it is allegation that accused Nos.1 and 2 have

demanded bribe of 10% of ₹10,00,000/-, which is

amounting to ₹1,00,000/-. It is the case of prosecution that

at the instigation of accused No.1, accused No.2 being

accountant working in the office of accused No.1, had

instructed the complainant to give bribe of ₹1,00,000/-.

4. Accordingly, the complainant on 09.02.2022 at

01.00 p.m. went to the place of accused No.1 and handed

over currency notes of denomination of 500 of having

quantity of 200 by putting them inside a cover and handed

over to accused No.2. The lokayukta police have conducted

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3709

HC-KAR

entrust panchanama and recovery panchanama, and after

raiding and seizing the currency notes from the possession

of accused No.2, the sodium permanganate solution was

turned into pink colour. Therefore, confirming this, crime

was registered against accused. It is the allegation against

accused No.1-petitioner that he has demanded the bribe

and accused No.2 by acting on behalf of accused No.1 has

received the amount. Both accused are in custody from

10.02.2026.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the

entire case of the complainant is false. He has never

demanded any amount from the complainant. The recovery

is from accused No.2 as per prosecution case. But there is

no recovery from accused No.1. Therefore, the entire

complaint averments are false one. The petitioner is in

custody since 10.02.2006 and filing of charge sheet may

take several months time. Further, the investigation can be

conducted on the basis of documentary evidence. Hence,

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3709

HC-KAR

there is no question of tampering the evidence and as such,

prays to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for

Lokayukta Police has vehemently objected for grant of bail

to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner being an

accountant had been alleged with criminal offence and if the

petitioner is released on bail, then there are chances of

tampering or threatening the evidence by putting influence.

Therefore, prays to dismiss the bail petition.

7. Upon considering the complaint averments,

entrustment panchanama and recovery panchanama

incriminates offence against accused No.2. In the complaint,

the allegation is against both accused Nos.1 and 2. But,

incriminating material in panchanama is against accused

No.2. Accused No.2 had stated that at the instance of

accused No.1, he has received the bribe amount. But here,

whether accused No.1 has instructed accused No.2 to

receive amount is a question of trial. Whether the

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3709

HC-KAR

petitioner/accused No.1 has put the demand of bribe is also

a question of trial. The petitioner is in custody since

10.02.2006. It is submitted that mother of petitioner is

suffering from many ailments due to her old age. For

completion of the investigation, it will take months

together. Furthermore, the entire investigation can be

conducted mainly on documentary evidence. Therefore,

there is no question of threatening the witnesses.

8. The accused No.1 is released on bail on

05.03.2026 in Crl.P.No.100339/2026. Hence, on the ground

of parity the petitioner herein is also entitled to be enlarged

on bail.

9. The complainant is also Class-I Contractor,

chances of threatening by accused is remote. Therefore,

making incarceration of the petitioner in jail for several

months or till filing the charge sheet deteriorates health

condition of the mother of petitioner. The petitioner being

working under the Executive Engineer under the service of

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3709

HC-KAR

the State of Karnataka, the chances of absconding is less.

Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that by putting

stringent conditions, the petitioner may be released on bail.

Therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed by releasing

the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail. Hence, I proceed to

pass following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed.

ii) The petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be

enlarged on bail in Crime No.1/2026 of

Vijayanagara Lokayukta Police Station,

registered for the offence punishable under

Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 (Amendment-2018), pending on the

file of Principal District and Sessions and

Special Judge, Vijayanagara District, Hospete,

subject to the following conditions.

a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along

NC: 2026:KHC-D:3709

HC-KAR

with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

b) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court.

c) The petitioner shall not tamper and threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

d) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly during the trial without fail. If not attend for consecutive two times it entails cancellation of bail.