Karnataka HC Refuses Anticipatory Bail in Alleged Bribery Case
In a significant legal development, the Karnataka High Court has indicated its unwillingness to grant anticipatory bail to a lawyer implicated in a cash-for-bail scam. The case involves allegations of bribery where a litigant was promised that her son would secure bail if a bribe was paid to a High Court judge. This matter is formally titled Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka.
Justice V Srishananda presided over the proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of custodial interrogation for the accused lawyer. “The allegation is that the bribe was intended for the judge. Custodial interrogation is crucial in such circumstances. Therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be considered,” the court observed during the hearing.
Accused Urged to Surrender
Justice Srishananda recommended that the accused lawyer, Advocate Dayeena Banu, should surrender to the investigating authorities or the jurisdictional court before seeking regular bail. “If she surrenders, the custodial interrogation can be concluded within a day, after which she can apply for regular bail,” the judge suggested. Banu’s legal representative sought additional time to confer with her, prompting the court to adjourn the plea until September 10.
Background of the Case
The allegations originate from a complaint by Theresa, whose son V Vishnu Devan was arrested in a murder case in 2021. According to Theresa, she was introduced to Marina Fernandes, who allegedly demanded ₹10 lakh to secure her son’s bail. When the bail did not materialize, Theresa asked for a refund, but the issued cheques bounced. Subsequently, she met Aarathi, who claimed to be closely associated with a High Court judge and demanded ₹1.72 lakh, with a portion purportedly meant as a bribe for the judge.
Advocate Dayeena Banu reportedly informed Theresa that a substantial payment was necessary to secure her son’s release. Theresa initially approached the State Bar Council, implicating lawyers Marina Fernandes and Aarathi in the alleged scam. She later wrote to the Karnataka High Court on December 18, 2024, alleging that an advocate was soliciting a bribe to influence a judge.
More Read
Legal Proceedings and Court’s Remarks
Following Theresa’s complaint, the High Court Registrar filed a case, leading to the police registering a First Information Report (FIR). Banu’s earlier attempt to dismiss the case was rejected by the High Court on August 6 due to the gravity of the allegations.
Justice Srishananda expressed serious concerns about the implications for the judiciary. “Claiming to have connections with judges for personal gain undermines the credibility of the legal system,” he stated. The judge emphasized the collective responsibility to maintain the institution’s integrity and cautioned against assigning undue priority in case listings.
Senior Advocate Hasmath Pasha, representing Banu, assured the court of her willingness to cooperate with investigations. He argued that other accused individuals had secured bail and that no incriminating evidence had been recovered from Banu. Despite these arguments, the court maintained its stance against granting anticipatory bail, stating, “While parity may apply in regular bail applications, it does not justify anticipatory bail in this instance.”
