The Karnataka High Court on September 9, declined to grant anticipatory bail to advocate Dayeena Banu, who is accused of allegedly telling a litigant that money had to be paid to a High Court judge to secure bail for her son.
Justice V Srishananda said the allegations required custodial interrogation and suggested that the lawyer surrender before the investigating agency or the jurisdictional court and thereafter seek regular bail.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint by Theresa, whose son V Vishnu Devan was arrested in 2021 in a murder case.
According to the allegations, Theresa was initially introduced to Marina Fernandes, who allegedly demanded ₹10 lakh for securing bail for her son. When the bail was not obtained, a refund was sought, but the cheques allegedly issued for the refund were not honoured.
Theresa was later introduced to Aarathi, who allegedly claimed to be close to a High Court judge and demanded ₹1.72 lakh. The allegations subsequently involved advocate Dayeena Banu, who allegedly told Theresa that a substantial amount would have to be paid to the judge for securing her son's release.
A complaint was eventually addressed to the Karnataka High Court, following which the Registrar lodged a complaint and the police registered an FIR.
Banu had earlier approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. That plea was dismissed on August 6.
Court’s Observations
During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Srishananda expressed serious concern over allegations that money was being sought in the name of a judge.
“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 also questioned the broader implications of such claims for the judiciary and legal profession.
“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.”
Justice Srishananda said he had previously instructed court staff to ensure that litigants did not receive any out-of-turn advantage in listing matters.
Decision
Senior Advocate Hasmath Pasha, appearing for Banu, submitted that she was willing to cooperate with the investigation and pointed out that other accused persons had received bail.
The Court, however, held that parity with other accused persons could not by itself justify anticipatory bail in Banu’s case.
“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 suggested that Banu surrender so that custodial interrogation could be completed and she could thereafter seek regular bail.
On her counsel’s request for time to obtain instructions, the matter was adjourned to September 10, 2026.
