DR. SHANTHA HOSAMANI, vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58740
CRL.P No. 14766 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661002026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14766 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
DR. SHANTHA HOSAMANI
W/O. PURUSHOTHAMA B.S
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT. NO.2036-5
THARALABALU BADAVANE
RANGANATH BADAVANE
DAVANAGERE CITY - 577 005.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. VIVEK REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. ASHWINI B.N, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIDHANA SOUDHA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU, NOW INVESTIGATED BY CID
BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS
LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by NANDINI D
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SMT. SINCHANA M.R, ADV., FOR KPSC;
SRI JAGADEESHA B.N, SPP A/W
SRI RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58740
CRL.P No. 14766 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661002026
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482
BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND DIRECT THAT
IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CR.NO.91/2026 OF VIDHANA
SOUDHA P.S. BENGALURU (NOW INVESTIGATED BY CID,
BENGALURU) ON THE FILE OF THE LV ADDL.C.J.M BENGALURU
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 10 OF THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC
EXAMINATION (MEASURES FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
AND UNFAIR MEANS IN RECRUITMENT) ACT 2023 THE
PETITIONER SHALL BE RELEASED ON BAIL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, is filed by
accused No.1, apprehending arrest in Crime No.91/2026
registered by Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bengaluru, which
is now being investigated by CID, Bengaluru, for the offence
punishable under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public
Examination (Measures for Prevention of Corruption and Unfair
Means in Recruitment) Act, 2023.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.91/2026 was registered by Vidhana
Soudha Police Station, Bengaluru, for the aforesaid offence
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58740
CRL.P No. 14766 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661002026
against the petitioner and another based on the first
information dated 07.08.2026 received from Kanthakumar R
S/o Rajanna, President of All Karnataka State Students
Association (R). Apprehending arrest in the said case, petitioner
had filed Crl.Misc.No.8154/2026 before the jurisdictional
Sessions Court, which was rejected on 10.09.2026. Therefore,
she is before this Court.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition
submits that petitioner is a married lady and Doctor by
profession. She has no criminal antecedents and she has
appeared before Investigation Officer in the present case and
co-operated for investigation. No incriminating material is
collected till date to connect the petitioner to the alleged crime.
She is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the
purpose of further investigation. Considering the nature of
allegations, her custodial interrogation may not be necessary in
the present case. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58740
CRL.P No. 14766 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661002026
5. Per contra, learned State Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State, who has filed statement of objections
opposing the petition, submits that petitioner and accused
No.2, have not cooperated with the police and their statements
are contradictory. Considering the nature of allegations,
involvement of other persons within the Institution and also
outside the Institution cannot be ruled-out. The particulars of
other beneficiaries if any, needs to be found out. He submits
that the petitioner is a very influential lady, who was holding a
responsible post and the alleged act committed by her clearly
attracts the offence for which FIR has now been registered. He,
accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the Karnataka Public Service
Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the KPSC' for short),
has produced the marks chart indicating the marks awarded to
accused No.2 and other candidates, who were interviewed on
the alleged date by the petitioner and other members of the
Interview Committee. He submits that documents relating to
the marks awarded is produced under a sealed cover because
the result of the examination has not yet been announced in
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58740
CRL.P No. 14766 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661002026
view of the interim order passed by this Court in a separate
proceedings.
7. In the first information, it is alleged that petitioner, who
was the member of the KPSC had received illegal gratification
from accused No.2, the candidate, who had appeared in the
examination for securing a post in KAS recruitment that was
held by the KPSC.
8. Records would reveal that petitioner, who is a member of
KPSC, was also the member of the Committee which had
interviewed accused No.2 along with other candidates on
08.05.2026. The allegation against the petitioner, who was
holding a responsible post is of committing an offence
punishable under the provisions of the Karnataka Public
Examination (Measures for Prevention of Corruption and Unfair
Means in Recruitment) Act, 2023, which was brought into force
with an objective to provide for strict and effective measures to
prevent and curb the offences of leakage of question papers
and use of unfair means at public examinations conducted for
recruitment to any post in or under the State Government,
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58740
CRL.P No. 14766 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661002026
including, autonomous bodies, authorities, boards or
corporations.
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that petitioner has appeared before the Investigation
Officer and cooperated for investigation and he also has
submitted that considering the nature of allegations found
against the petitioner, her custodial interrogation may not be
necessary.
10. The allegation against the petitioner is of favoring a
particular candidate for extraneous reasons, in the interview
that was held to the post of KAS officers. Records made
available to the Court by learned SPP and learned counsel for
KPSC makes out a prima facie case for the alleged offence,
which is punishable with imprisonment upto twelve years.
Petitioner allegedly has misused her office for the purpose of
making unlawful gain. Such acts result in public loosing faith in
the system and thousands of students, who are otherwise
meritorious are deprived appointments. In such situations, no
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58740
CRL.P No. 14766 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661002026
matter how high the office the accused holds, he or she is to be
treated on an equal footing by law, with iron hands.
11. Even in a case where custodial interrogation may not be
required, the Court is required to consider other aspects of the
case, like nature and gravity of allegations, impact of the crime
on society, chances of accused tampering evidence and yielding
influence etc. while considering prayer for pre-arrest bail. The
necessity of custodial interrogation is a question to be decided
by the concerned Court at the time when remand is prayed for.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P.
vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu and Another - (1997) 8 SCC
104 , in a case where accused was involved in leakage of
question papers for crucial examination conducted by Public
Service Commission and Board of Intermediate Education, has
set-aside the order of anticipatory bail granted to the accused
by the High Court. In paragraph Nos.7 to 9 and 12 of the said
judgment, it is observed as follows:-
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58740
CRL.P No. 14766 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661002026
"7. There is no indication in Section 438 of the
Code for justifying a hiatus to be made among non-
bailable offences vivisecting those punishable with
death or imprisonment for life and those others
punishable with less than life imprisonment. No
doubt such a classification is indicated in Section
437(1) of the Code, but that section is concerned
only with post-arrest bail and not pre-arrest bail.
Learned Single Judge seems to have telescoped
considerations contemplated in Section 437 into the
amplitude of the discretion envisaged in Section
438 of the Code.
8. A three-Judge Bench of this Court has stated
in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(1985) 2 SCC
597 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 297 : AIR 1985 SC 969] :
(SCC p. 600, para 5)
“5. Relevant considerations governing the
court's decision in granting anticipatory bail
under Section 438 are materially different
from those when an application for bail by a
person who is arrested in the course of
investigation as also by a person who is
convicted and his appeal is pending before
the higher court and bail is sought during the
pendency of the appeal.”
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58740
CRL.P No. 14766 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661002026
9. Similar observations have been made by us in
a recent judgment in State v. Anil Sharma [(1997)
7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 : JT (1997) 7 SC
651] : (SCC pp. 189-90, para 8)
“The consideration which should weigh with
the Court while dealing with a request for
anticipatory bail need not be the same as for
an application to release on bail after arrest.”
xxx
12. We are strongly of the opinion that this is not
a case for exercising the discretion under Section
438 in favour of granting anticipatory bail to the
respondents. It is disquieting that implications of
arming the respondents, when they are pitted
against this sort of allegations involving well-
orchestrated conspiracy, with a pre-arrest bail
order, though subject to some conditions, have not
been taken into account by the learned Single
Judge. We have absolutely no doubt that if the
respondents are equipped with such an order
before they are interrogated by the police it would
greatly harm the investigation and would impede
the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications
involved in the conspiracy. Public interest also
would suffer as a consequence. Having apprised
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58740
CRL.P No. 14766 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661002026
himself of the nature and seriousness of the
criminal conspiracy and the adverse impact of it on
“the career of millions of students”, learned Single
Judge should not have persuaded himself to
exercise the discretion which Parliament had very
thoughtfully conferred on the Sessions Judges and
the High Courts through Section 438 of the Code,
by favouring the respondents with such a pre-arrest
bail order."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State vs. Anil
Sharma - (1997) 7 SCC 187 , in paragraph No.6 has observed
as follows:-
"6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more
elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who
is well ensconced with a favourable order under
Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective
interrogation of a suspected person is of
tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful
informations and also materials which would have
been concealed. Success in such interrogation
would elude if the suspected person knows that he
is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail
order during the time he is interrogated. Very often
interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58740
CRL.P No. 14766 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661002026
mere ritual. The argument that the custodial
interrogation is fraught with the danger of the
person being subjected to third-degree methods
need not be countenanced, for, such an argument
can be advanced by all accused in all criminal
cases. The Court has to presume that responsible
police officers would conduct themselves in a
responsible manner and that those entrusted with
the task of disinterring offences would not conduct
themselves as offenders."
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha
Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C. K. and Another - (2022) 17
SCC 391 , in paragraph No.12 has observed as follows:-
"12. ... In many anticipatory bail matters, we have
noticed one common argument being canvassed
that no custodial interrogation is required and,
therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There
appears to be a serious misconception of law that if
no case for custodial interrogation is made out by
the prosecution, then that alone would be a good
ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to
be considered along with other grounds while
deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail.
There may be many cases in which the custodial
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58740
CRL.P No. 14766 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661002026
interrogation of the accused may not be required,
but that does not mean that the prima facie case
against the accused should be ignored or
overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory
bail. The first and foremost thing that the court
hearing an anticipatory bail application should
consider is the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence
should be looked into along with the severity of the
punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of
the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However,
even if custodial interrogation is not required or
necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant
anticipatory bail."
15. Learned State Public Prosecutor has contended that
though petitioner has appeared before the Investigation Officer,
she has not cooperated for investigation. The call details of
accused Nos.1 and 2 demonstrate that there were multiple calls
between them prior to the interview.
16. This Court has also perused the marks awarded by the
petitioner and other members of the Interview Committee to
accused No.2 in the interview that was held on 08.05.2026,
who is allegedly favoured by the petitioner.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58740
CRL.P No. 14766 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661002026
17. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that
statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 with regard to their
acquaintance is contradictory. Therefore, a thorough
investigation in this type of cases is necessary to unearth the
roots of crime, involvement of other persons within and outside
the Institution, particulars of undeserving candidates who have
been favoured, modus operandi followed by the accused etc.,
so as to curb and restore faith in the system.
18. While considering the bail application, Court should not
delve upon appreciating material evidence more so, when the
investigation is still under progress. Considering the nature of
allegations and the material collected till date, I am of the
opinion that prayer made by the petitioner for grant of
anticipatory bail cannot be entertained.
19. At this juncture, it is necessary to clarify that rejection of
anticipatory bail should not be considered that custody of
accused would be required or that he or she should be
arrested. Depending upon the material collected, circumstances
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58740
CRL.P No. 14766 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661002026
and the conduct of accused, the Investigation Officer is
required to exercise his discretion and take an objective view
on the requirement of custody of an accused. Accordingly, the
following order:-
20. The criminal petition is dismissed .
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
DN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77