Karnataka High Court refuses to quash FIR against advocate involved in cash-for-bail scam

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday refused to quash criminal proceedings against a Mysuru-based advocate who was accused of promising bail for a litigant's son by bribing a High Court judge. [Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka].

Justice M Nagaprasanna underscored that allegations suggesting that money was collected to bribe a judge could not be brushed aside at the threshold.

"What is alleged in the case at hand is a litigant coming before the coordinate Bench of this Court with a letter that the Advocate and the cohorts of the Advocate have taken money on the ground that they would secure a bail by giving the Hon'ble Judge certain money. Therefore, the complaint is registered...to investigate and bring in the perpetrators of such allegation."

The Court added,

"The allegation, if found to be true, would cut at the root of the integrity of the Institution. Therefore, in such cases investigation is a must as the question involved is Institutional integrity."

The case stems from allegations made by Theresa, whose son V Vishnu Devan was arrested in 2021 in a murder case. As per the complaint, Theresa was introduced to one Marina Fernandes near Mayo Hall court, who demanded ₹10 lakh to secure bail for her son. When the bail did not come through, she sought a refund. However, the cheques she was issued as refund were not honoured.

Theresa was then introduced to another woman, Aarathi, claiming to be a close aide of a High Court judge. She was asked for a sum of ₹1.72 lakh, out of which ₹1 lakh would be given to the judge.

Advocate Dayeena Banu then entered the picture to inform Theresa that a substantial amount had to be paid to the High Court judge in order to secure her son's release.

Theresa initially approached the State Bar Council with allegations that two lawyers - Marina Fernandes and Aarathi - had cheated her. She later addressed a letter dated December 18, 2024 directly to the Karnataka High Court alleging that an advocate was demanding money to bribe a judge.

The High Court Registrar subsequently registered a complaint, on the basis of which the police filed a first information report (FIR). Seeking to quash the case, Banu moved the High Court.

Senior Advocate Hasmath Pasha, appearing for Banu, argued that his client was facing disciplinary proceedings before the Bar Council. He contended that the ingredients of the offence of cheating were not made out in Banu's conduct. He also contended that the FIR had been registered without a preliminary enquiry.

State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha submitted that allegations involving demands for money in the name of bribing judges posed a serious threat to the credibility of the judiciary and warranted a full-fledged investigation. He argued that the investigation had barely commenced because interim protection had stalled the probe.

While dismissing the plea, Justice Nagaprasanna held that although the alleged offence was one of cheating, it assumed a larger institutional dimension because it involved allegations that judicial orders could be secured through bribery.

"The offence of cheating allegedly committed by an individual in the normal circumstance becomes an institutional concern when such cases are projected. Therefore, there can be no question of interdiction of investigation on any ground whatsoever unless investigation would ensue and a final report is filed before the concerned Court."

[Read Order]