Bail is justified where corruption-trap demand evidence is unproduced and investigation is substantially complete.

The Lokayukta Police registered Crime No. 4 of 2026 against the petitioner for an alleged offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner demanded a bribe of ₹7,00,000, later reduced to ₹6,50,000, for making entries in revenue records concerning land.

The complainant stated that he recorded an earlier conversation and approached the Lokayukta Police on 24 August 2026.

During the trap on 25 August 2026, the complainant allegedly placed ₹3,00,000 in a cover on the petitioner’s table and signalled the police, who entered and apprehended him.

The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody; the Sessions Court rejected his bail application on 31 August 2026.

He then sought regular bail before the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail in the case alleging an offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Whether the circumstances of the alleged trap, the available recorded evidence, the stage of investigation, and the petitioner’s period in custody supported granting bail

The Court considered the petitioner’s application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).

It noted that the maximum punishment for the alleged offence was seven years’ imprisonment and considered the circumstances of the trap, the investigation’s progress, and the petitioner’s custody in deciding whether to grant bail

The order cites no precedents or further doctrinal test

The Court observed that, according to the remand application, the complainant had left the money on the petitioner’s table and signalled the police after leaving the office.

The conversation between the complainant and the petitioner inside the office on the day of the trap had not been recorded, and the Court had not been provided with a transcription of the earlier recording said to capture the alleged demand.

The Court also considered that much of the investigation in a trap case is completed on the day of the trap, the maximum punishment was seven years, and the petitioner had been in custody for more than a month.

On those circumstances, it found bail appropriate

Conditions included executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, regularly attending trial, not threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses, and not becoming involved in similar offences.