Karnataka High Court denies pre-arrest bail to KPSC member accused of taking bribe to favour KAS candidate

The petitioner, a member of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC), apprehended arrest in Crime No. 91/2026, registered under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Corruption and Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2023.

The complaint alleged that she had received illegal gratification from accused No. 2, a candidate in the KAS recruitment examination, whom she had interviewed as part of a committee on 8 May 2026.

After the Sessions Court rejected her anticipatory-bail application, she sought relief from the High Court, submitting that she had cooperated with the investigation and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The State opposed the application, relying, among other matters, on call records, alleged non-cooperation, and inconsistent accounts of the petitioner’s acquaintance with accused No. 2.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the prima facie material, the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence, and the ongoing investigation.

2. Whether the petitioner’s claimed cooperation and the asserted lack of need for custodial interrogation, by themselves, justified granting anticipatory bail.

The petition was considered under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for anticipatory bail; the alleged offence was under Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Corruption and Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2023.

In deciding anticipatory bail, the court must assess the prima facie case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the impact on society, and the risks of evidence-tampering or influence; the need for custodial interrogation is relevant but is not, alone, decisive.

Relying on State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu, (1997) 8 SCC 104, and State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Court noted that pre-arrest bail may impede effective investigation in serious or complex cases.

It also applied Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391, for the principle that the absence of a demonstrated need for custodial interrogation does not, by itself, warrant anticipatory bail.

The Court considered the allegation that the petitioner had favoured a candidate she interviewed, the marks awarded by the interview committee, and the material placed before it by the State and KPSC, and found that the material disclosed a prima facie case.

It also took account of the alleged multiple calls between the petitioner and accused No. 2 before the interview, their allegedly contradictory statements about their acquaintance, and the need to investigate possible involvement of others and identify any other beneficiaries.

Given the gravity of the alleged offence and the investigation’s need to uncover its wider circumstances, the petitioner’s asserted cooperation and the claim that custodial interrogation might not be necessary did not suffice to justify pre-arrest protection.

It clarified that rejection of the application did not mean that the petitioner must be arrested or that her custody was necessarily required; the Investigating Officer must independently assess the need for custody in light of the evidence, circumstances, and the petitioner’s conduct.