BENGALURU: Given the material procured by the prosecution, which warranted deeper examination, the Karnataka High Court was not justified in foreclosing the possibility of custodial interrogation by granting anticipatory bail to IPS officer Srinath Joshi M, said the Supreme Court while setting aside the anticipatory bail granted to him in relation to in-house corruption in the Lokayukta.
“The respondent is a Superintendent of Police. Grave accusations have been levelled against him in the context of his alleged abuse of office within the Lokayukta. As the very objective of the Lokayukta’s establishment is to check corruption, the allegation against the respondent to the effect that he is himself a part of such corruption warranted serious consideration.
Joshi cannot claim parity with a layman, who seeks protection from being arraigned as an accused in a criminal case and being investigated/arrested in connection therewith”, the Supreme Court observed.
Allowing the criminal appeal filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta police challenging the order dated September 1, 2025, passed by the Karnataka High Court granting anticipatory bail to Joshi, former Superintendent of Police of Lokayukta, Bengaluru division, the Supreme Court’s division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva directed Joshi to surrender within three weeks before the Lokayukta police from this order dated October 29. At the same time, the SC granted him liberty to seek regular bail.
Referring to the case of the Lokayukta, the SC stated that two mobile phone handsets were seized from Joshi and they were found to have been tampered with and were extensively damaged. These mobile handsets were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination, and a report was awaited at the time the High Court granted relief to Joshi.
The High Court was inclined to take a lenient view towards Joshi on the ground that he had already appeared before the investigating officer (IO) pursuant to the notice issued to him. As Joshi had appeared before the IO in response to the notice issued to him and as he was not arrested, the High Court opined that there was no apprehension of his being arrested and, accordingly, granted him relief.
Aggrieved thereby, the Lokayukta police is before us, the Supreme Court noted.
