The immediate order was procedural: with the advocate already arrested, her plea for protection from arrest had nothing left to protect, and was dismissed as infructuous. But the substance had been signalled days earlier, when the Court said in terms that there was no question of anticipatory bail because custodial interrogation was necessary. The allegation at the heart of the case is a grave one, that money was sought purportedly to be paid as a bribe to a High Court judge to secure a bail order. It is, at this stage, only an allegation, and untested.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed as infructuous an anticipatory bail plea filed by an advocate accused in a so-called cash-for-bail case, after being informed that she had already been arrested [Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka].
Justice V. Srishananda dismissed the plea after counsel for the accused advocate informed the Court that she had been arrested the previous day. The Court recorded the submission and, the protection sought having been overtaken by the arrest, dismissed the anticipatory bail application as infructuous.
What the Court had earlier indicated
The dismissal followed the Court’s indication, days earlier, that it was disinclined to grant anticipatory bail, having observed that custodial interrogation was necessary. On September 9, the Court had orally remarked:
“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.”
At that hearing, the Court had suggested that the advocate surrender before the investigating agency or the jurisdictional court and thereafter seek regular bail. She was arrested shortly afterwards.
The allegations
As set out in the reported account, the case stems from a complaint by a woman whose son had been arrested in a murder case in 2021. According to the complaint, she was introduced to a person who allegedly demanded Rs 10 lakh to secure bail for her son; when bail was not secured and she sought a refund, the cheques issued to her allegedly bounced. She was then said to have been introduced to another woman, who allegedly claimed to be close to a High Court judge and demanded Rs 1.72 lakh, including Rs 1 lakh purportedly meant as a bribe for the judge.
The advocate is alleged to have later told the complainant that a substantial amount would have to be paid to a High Court judge to secure her son’s release. The complainant first approached the State Bar Council alleging cheating, and then, by a letter of December 2024 to the Karnataka High Court, alleged that an advocate too was demanding money to bribe a judge. The High Court Registrar registered a complaint, on which the police lodged an FIR naming the advocate among the accused.
These are the allegations as recorded in the complaint and the reporting; none has been tested, and no charge has been established. The names of the persons said to be intermediaries, and of any judge, are matters within the investigation, and no judge has been identified in the proceedings as having sought or received anything.
The earlier quashing plea
The advocate had earlier approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal case against her. That plea, too, was dismissed, on August 6, with the Court citing the seriousness of the allegations. With the anticipatory bail plea now also disposed of, her remedy, as the Court had indicated, lies in seeking regular bail after surrender.
Why it matters
The order itself is a narrow, procedural one, an anticipatory bail plea cannot survive the very arrest it sought to prevent, so its dismissal as infructuous is routine. What gives the matter its weight is the nature of the allegation and the identity of the accused. An allegation that money was solicited on the representation that it would be paid to a sitting High Court judge to procure a bail order strikes at public confidence in the administration of justice itself, which is why the Court treated custodial interrogation as necessary and declined the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail.
That an advocate, an officer of the court, is among those named makes the case more sensitive still, and explains the seriousness with which the Court has approached it at every stage, refusing to quash the FIR and declining pre-arrest protection. Courts have consistently held that custodial interrogation may be genuinely necessary where the investigation must trace a chain of intermediaries and money, and an allegation of this kind, involving purported influence over the judiciary, is precisely the sort in which the investigating agency’s case for custody carries weight.
None of this, it must be stressed, is a finding of guilt. The accused advocate is entitled to the presumption of innocence; the allegations, including the claim that a bribe was sought for a judge, are untested and remain to be proved; and no judge has been named or implicated by any court as having sought or taken money. What has been decided is only that she is not entitled to anticipatory bail, a decision now overtaken by her arrest, and that her path lies through an application for regular bail and, in due course, the trial. The seriousness the Court has attached to the allegation reflects the gravity of what is alleged, not a conclusion about what occurred.
Case Title: Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka
Bench: Justice V. Srishananda, High Court of Karnataka
Status: Anticipatory bail plea dismissed as infructuous following the accused’s arrest; earlier plea to quash the FIR dismissed on August 6, 2026. Allegations untested; no charge established; presumption of innocence applies. Remedy of regular bail available.