Longstanding revenue entries and possession warranted anticipatory bail despite missing original grant records.

The petitioners, Accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 in Crime No. 5/2026 registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, sought anticipatory bail after their applications before the jurisdictional court were rejected

The case concerns alleged creation of a grant order and saguvali chits for Government land in Sy. No. 154, Shivanahalli Village, and consequential changes to revenue records.

The prosecution alleged that the original grant records were unavailable and that the public-servant petitioners issued computerized RTCs in August 2025.

The Court noted, however, that revenue records had recorded the grantees’ names from 1972–73 onwards and that the petitioners were said to have possessed the lands since the grant.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in Crime No. 5/2026 for the alleged offences under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act

2. Whether the historical revenue entries and the circumstances surrounding issuance of the computerized RTCs supported granting anticipatory bail

The petitions invoked Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the provision governing a direction for release on bail in the event of arrest

The alleged offences were under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018

The Court applied its discretion to grant anticipatory bail subject to conditions; it cited no precedent or further legal test

The Court considered the allegation that original grant records were unavailable but weighed it against revenue records showing the grantees’ names continuously from 1972–73 onwards.

It also noted the allegation that the public-servant petitioners issued computerized RTCs in 2025, notwithstanding the absence of original records, and that the landholders were said to have possessed the land since the grant

On those circumstances, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ request for anticipatory bail should be allowed, subject to conditions

Each petitioner was required to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days of receiving the order and execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; attend the Trial Court unless exempted; refrain from tampering with witnesses; cooperate with the investigation and attend when called; and not involve themselves in similar offences