Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/3870/2026 of NANJUNDAMMA H M Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 7 April 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:18782 CRL.P No. 3870 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3870 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. NANJUNDAMMA H M W/O RAVIKUMARA H, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3870 OF 2026
(439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1.
NANJUNDAMMA H M
W/O RAVIKUMARA H,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PDO,
THANGALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548
NATIVE OF ASANDI VILLAGE,
CHOWLAHIRIYURU HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST- 577 180
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, LOKAYUKTHA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
PAVITHRA
N
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED
U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME
NO.1/2026 REGISTERED BY THE CHIKKAMAGALURU POLICE, STATION
CHIKKAMAGALURU
DIST
FOR
THE
OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 7(A) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRICNIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused before this Court seeking for regular bail in Crime No.1/2026 filed by the respondent/police for the offence punishable under Section 8(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Chikkamagaluru.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, being a Panchayath Development Officer (for short, ‘PDO’) of Tangali Grama Panchayat, allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant for the purpose of issuing a No Objection Certificate required
HC-KAR
for the inclusion of converted residential land within the municipal limits. It is alleged that amount of Rs.3,000/- has been received by the petitioner, and at that time, she has been apprehended by the respondent/Lokayukta. Subsequently, they followed a procedure and she has been remanded to judicial custody. The investigation is under progress.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. She has been falsely implicated in this case with an intention to harass her. The procedure adopted does not, in any manner, establish that she had demanded or accepted the amount as alleged in the complaint. The complainant, with an ulterior motive to implicate her in a false case, allegedly placed the amount, and the respondent/Lokayukta apprehended the petitioner. The petitioner is the permanent resident of Kadur Taluk, Chikkamagaluru. She will abide by the conditions to be
HC-KAR
imposed by this Court in the event of her release on bail. Making such submission, he prays to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned Special Counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta, vehemently submitted, by filing a statement of objections, that the demand and acceptance have been established. The same has been recorded and the transcription has been reduced into writing. As per the said transcription, the demand has been duly proved. A sum of Rs.3,000/- was allegedly paid to the petitioner as illegal gratification for discharging her official duty and for showing official favour to the complainant. Since the petitioner has committed heinous offence, it is not appropriate to show any leniency to the petitioner. Making such submission, he prays to reject the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the averments of the complaint.
HC-KAR
6. It appears that the petitioner was working as a Panchayath Development Officer (PDO) of Thangali Grama Panchayat. The complainant is an agriculturist. Her son-in- law, who is serving as a Sub-Inspector in the CRPF, had purchased two properties situated within the limits of Thangali Grama Panchayat, Kaduru Taluk. The said lands were to be converted for residential purposes by the Deputy Commissioner of Chikkamagaluru. An application was filed by the complainant on 13.08.2025 seeking inclusion of the converted lands within the municipal limits through the office of the concerned Deputy Commissioner. For that purpose, a No Objection Certificate from the Gram Panchayat was to be required. It is alleged that, in order to issue the said certificate, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification.
7. Be that as it may, on going through the averments of the complaint and the other materials available on record, and without adverting to the merits of the case, it is appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner by
HC-KAR
imposing suitable conditions that would take care of apprehension of the prosecution. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed. ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.1/2026 filed by the respondent/police for the offence punishable under Section 8(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Chikkamagaluru on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.
iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail. v) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal cases till disposal of the case.
HC-KAR
In case, the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE
BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21