While granting bail to an advocate accused of demanding bribe in the name of a Judge for securing a favouable bail order, the Karnataka High Court has observed that such conduct amounts to highest form of professional misconduct and tarnishes the name of the Judge as well as the institution.

The High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner seeking bail in connection with a case registered by Vidhana Soudha Police Station for the offences under Sections 318(4), 79 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The Single Bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held, “Before parting, without reflecting anything on the merits of the prosecution case and the defence of the petitioner, the Court must observe that in case the alleged incident had taken place, it is one of the most unfortunate things to happen as such conduct amounts to highest form of professional misconduct on the part of the advocate. Such an act tarnishes the name of the Judge as well as the institution.”

Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha represented the Petitioner while Additional Special Public Prosecutor M N Anoop Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The allegation was that the petitioner demanded amount in the name of the Judge to secure a bail order. It was alleged that Rs 72,000 was collected and Rs 1 lakh was demanded stating that the amount was demanded by the Judge. It was alleged that the remaining two petitioners, who were granted bail, collected money from the complainant on the pretext of bribing the Judge. The second Accused allegedly collected money stating that she knew the Judge and after collecting Rs 70,72,000 had not replied to the calls of the complainant. It was further alleged that the third accused collected Rs 10,00,000 stating that he would pay the amount to the Judge to secure the bail but it was not granted.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the remaining two petitioners had been granted bail. The Bench found that the investigation was not complete as against the petitioner.

The Bench further took into consideration that the telephonic conversations and call details had been secured by the Investigating Agency. “...the petitioner's further retention may not be required”, it stated.

The Bench concluded the matter by holding that the act was the highest form of professional misconduct on the part of the advocate.

Decision

The Bench was of the view that the settled position of law governing bail would come to the aid of the petitioner. “This being the position, the Court is the view that the petition has to be allowed and the petitioner is required to be released on bail”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Dayeen Banu.B.M v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:59251)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha, Advocate Nasir Ali

Respondent: Additional Special Public Prosecutor M N Anoop Kumar

Click here to read/download Order


Karnataka High CourtJustice Anant Ramanath Hegde

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.