Within three weeks, a Superintendent of Police in the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police must surrender: the Supreme Court has cancelled the Anticipatory Bail Of Lokayukta SP Srinath Joshi Mahadev, noting that the allegations, which are untested, concern the very body set up to check corruption.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the anticipatory bail granted by the Karnataka High Court to IPS officer Srinath Joshi Mahadev, a Superintendent of Police in the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, in an extortion and corruption case registered by the Lokayuktha itself, and has directed him to surrender within three weeks [Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Bangalore District v. Srinath Joshi Mahadev, IPS].
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva allowed the appeal of the Lokayuktha Police on October 29, 2026, against the Karnataka High Court order of September 1, 2025 in Criminal Petition No. 10806/2025.
Rank, setting and the High Court’s approach
The Bench began with the officer’s rank and the setting of the allegations:
“The inescapable fact is that the respondent is a member of the uniformed service and is of the rank of no less than the Superintendent of Police. Grave accusations have been levelled against him in the context of his alleged abuse of office within the establishment of the Lokayuktha. As the very objective of the Lokayuktha’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.”
A uniformed officer, it added, stands on a different footing from an ordinary citizen:
“Being a member of a uniformed service, the respondent 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.”
As for the High Court’s approach, the Court held:
“Given the material procured by the prosecution, which warranted deeper examination, the High Court was not justified in foreclosing the possibility of custodial interrogation by granting anticipatory bail to the respondent.”
FIR No. 28/2025 and the first accused
The Lokayuktha Police registered FIR No. 28/2025 on June 2, 2025 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Initially only one accused was named: Ningappa Savantha, a police constable dismissed from service for unauthorised absence. The prosecution alleges that he projected himself as an official of the Lokayuktha’s office to extract money from public servants under threat.
Mahadev was not named in the FIR at first. He was implicated on the basis of disclosures made by Savantha and was examined under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He was later arraigned as accused No. 2. According to the prosecution, the two were in touch and Savantha used to visit the Lokayuktha office to meet him.
Two refusals by the Special Court, then bail from the High Court
The Special Court rejected Mahadev’s plea for anticipatory bail on June 24, 2025, while proceedings stood stayed in his writ petition before the High Court. After that writ petition was disposed of on July 8, 2025, his second application was rejected by the Special Court on July 18, 2025. The High Court then granted him anticipatory bail, reasoning that he had appeared before the Investigating Officer on notice, had not been arrested, and so had no apprehension of arrest.
Before the Supreme Court, the Lokayuktha Police pointed out that two mobile phones seized from the officer had been tampered with and extensively damaged. The forensic report on the handsets was still awaited when the High Court passed its order.
Surrender, then regular bail in the ordinary course
The Court set aside the High Court order and directed Mahadev to surrender within three weeks from October 29, 2026. He will be at liberty to seek regular bail thereafter, in accordance with law, before the appropriate forum.
The allegations against the officer remain untested at trial. The order deals only with pre-arrest protection, the Court has expressed no view on the merits of the case, and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
What the order signals
The order reaffirms that appearing before an Investigating Officer on notice does not, by itself, end the case for custodial interrogation. Where the prosecution has material that needs deeper examination, and here damaged phones with a forensic report pending, a court granting pre-arrest bail must weigh that material rather than treat non-arrest as proof of no threat.
It also signals a stricter lens for police officers accused of misusing their office, especially inside an anti-corruption body. A senior uniformed officer, the Bench said, cannot ask for the same protection as a layman, and the allegation that an officer of the Lokayuktha is himself part of corruption calls for serious scrutiny.
Case Title: Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Bangalore District v. Srinath Joshi Mahadev, IPS [Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4840/2026]
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 29, 2026
For the Appellant: Vikram Hegde (AOR), Trishan Dollny and Akshit Singla, Advocates
For the Respondent: Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal with Sanjay Jain (AOR), Shankar Hegde and Sunny Sachin Rawat, Advocates