Advocate Accused Of Demanding Money In Judge’s Name For Bail Gets Bail From Karnataka HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner should be released on bail despite the investigation against her remaining incomplete.

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner’s release on bail in Crime No. 117/2024, subject to conditions including a personal bond of Rs. 3,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum, cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, provision of current contact details, and restrictions on leaving Mysuru and Bengaluru without prior intimation.

It also directed

The Court expressly stated that its observations did not reflect on the merits of the prosecution or the defence.

01Facts

The petitioner sought bail in Crime No. 117/2024, registered by Vidhana Soudha Police for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 79 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

p. 2

The complaint alleged that she demanded money in the name of a sitting Judge to secure bail for the complainant’s son; the complaint further referred to Rs. 72,000 allegedly collected and a demand for Rs. 1 lakh.

p. 2, 7

The petitioner had been in custody since 17 September 2026. The investigation was ongoing against her, although the charge sheet had been filed against two co-accused, who had been granted bail.

pp. 2–3, 5–6

The Sessions Court rejected her bail application, and she challenged that refusal before the High Court.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner should be released on bail despite the investigation against her remaining incomplete.

pp. 3, 6–8

ii.2. Whether the alleged failure to issue notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), before arrest supported the grant of bail.

p. 4

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Section 483 of the BNSS, which provides for the High Court’s and Sessions Court’s special powers regarding bail.

p. 1

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 79 and 3(5) of the BNS; the Court noted that the maximum punishment for the offences alleged was seven years’ imprisonment and fine.

p. 2, 5

The petitioner invoked Section 35(3) of the BNSS and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, concerning notice before arrest in the circumstances described by the petitioner.

p. 6

The Court’s stated basis for bail was the settled law governing bail, considered alongside the alleged maximum punishment, the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedents, and the investigation materials already secured.

pp. 7–8

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 318 Section 79 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court acknowledged that the investigation against the petitioner was incomplete, but noted that the alleged offences were not punishable with death or life imprisonment and that the petitioner had no other criminal antecedents.

pp. 6–7

Although the co-accused had received bail only after charge sheets were filed against them, the Court considered that the investigating agency had secured the petitioner’s call details and that the State reported recorded telephone conversations between the petitioner and the complainant.

pp. 5–7

In those circumstances, it concluded that further custody was not required merely to continue the investigation.

p. 7

The Court did not make a separate finding on whether the arrest violated Section 35(3) of the BNSS.