No question of giving anticipatory bail to lawyer accused in cash-for-bail scam: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday indicated that it is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to a lawyer accused of promising a litigant that her son would be granted bail if a bribe is paid to a High Court judge [Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka].

Justice V Srishananda observed that this was a case where custodial interrogation of the accused lawyer is required.

“The allegation is that the bribe was taken to give it to the judge. Whatever it is, custodial interrogation is necessary. There is no question of granting anticipatory bail,” the Court orally observed.

The Court suggested that the accused lawyer, advocate Dayeena Babu (petitioner), surrender before the investigating agency or the jurisdictional court and then apply for regular bail.

“I will observe that if she surrenders, custodial interrogation can be completed in a day and later she can be produced before the court for the purpose of regular bail,” the judge added.

Babu's counsel sought some time to get instructions from her on this. In view of the request, the Court adjourned Babu's anticipatory bail plea till tomorrow (September 10, Thursday).

The case stems from allegations made by one 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, 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, who claimed to be a close aide of a High Court judge. Aarathi allegedly asked for a sum of ₹1.72 lakh, with ₹1 allegedly earmarked as a bribe for a judge.

Advocate Dayeena Banu then entered the picture to inform Theresa that a substantial amount had to be paid to the High Court judge 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, based on which the police filed a first information report (FIR).

Banu had earlier filed a plea to quash the case against her. However, the High Court dismissed this plea on August 6, given the seriousness of the allegations.

Similar concerns were expressed by Justice Srishananda as well today.

“Standing in the corridor and asking for money, saying that 'I will give it to the judge' is unheard of ... If such a case came (where any party claimed proximity to a judge), judges used to say ‘not before me’. These days, parties say that this case should not go before a particular judge. What does that mean? They have some connection with some other antisocial elements,” he remarked.

The Court added that claims that bail could be secured by bribing a judge would damage the reputation of the judiciary, lawyers and the institution.

“Who is behind this? What is the racket behind this? Why are the names of judges, the institution and lawyers being destroyed? It is a collective responsibility,” the judge said.

He went on to reveal that he has strictly cautioned court staff to ensure that no litigant gets out-of-turn priority in case listings.

“Earlier, when I was on the bail matter roster, I had warned my staff and told them that merciless action will be taken. I did not allow even the peon to handle my (lunch) box. Even today I will not allow it. I will not mark anything in my cause list,” Justice Srishananda said.

The Court said that although minor aberrations may have occurred in the past and could occur in the future, the responsibility of everyone associated with the institution was to ensure that such practices did not tarnish its reputation.

“It is our responsibility to remove the bad name on the institution at the right time,” the Court said.

Senior Advocate Hasmath Pasha, representing Banu, submitted that she was willing to cooperate with the investigation. It was also argued that the other accused had been granted bail and that there had been no recovery of any incriminating material from Banu.

The Court, however, was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

“Go through whatever is required and later apply for bail. On the ground of parity you are entitled. But on the ground of parity, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to this particular petitioner,” the Court said.