Dayeen Banu Case: Karnataka HC Grants Bail, Slams Alleged Judicial Bribery by Lawyers

Karnataka High Court Condemns Allegations of Judicial Corruption by Legal Professionals While Exercising Discretionary Relief in a Notorious Cash-for-Bail Scandal Case

Legal Battles and Broader Institutional Repercussions Highlight Professional Misconduct Concerns Across Indian Courts

By Legal Editor

New Delhi: November 04, 2026:

The High Court of Karnataka has strongly emphasized that corrupt practices involving fraudulent demands of bribes in the name of judges strike at the absolute root of public faith in the judiciary. While addressing a high-profile criminal case, Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde granted bail to Dayeen Banu B.M., an advocate implicated in a criminal conspiracy involving allegations of soliciting heavy sums of money to secure favourable bail orders.

While the bench granted relief under established criminal jurisprudence governing pre-trial detention, the court did not mince words regarding the gravity of the allegations. The judiciary noted that such conduct—if proven—represents the most egregious and destructive form of professional misconduct, severely tarnishing the reputation of sitting judges and eroding the sanctity of justice delivery systems. This comprehensive investigative report analyzes the legal background, the factual matrix of the case, judicial observations, and implications for legal ethics in India.

Factual Matrix: How the Cash-for-Bail Scandal Unfolded

The genesis of the case traces back to Crime No. 117 of 2024, registered at the Vidhana Soudha Police Station in Bengaluru City. The criminal prosecution was initiated following a written complaint submitted directly to the High Court by a woman named Smt. Theresa, whose son, V. Vishnu Devan, had been arrested in connection with a high-stakes murder case and remanded to judicial custody.

According to court documents and investigative files:

• Initial Intermediaries: The complainant alleged that she was initially approached by individuals, including other co-accused lawyers/intermediaries, who demanded massive sums of money under the false pretext of influencing judicial officers or police officials to secure her son's release.
• Entry of the Petitioner: Advocate Dayeena Banu subsequently entered the matrix. It was alleged that she communicated to the distraught mother that small amounts would not suffice, claiming that judicial authorities allegedly required substantial amounts (upwards of ₹50,00,000) to grant relief.
• Legal Qualification of Charges: The state registered the case under Sections 318(4) (Cheating), 79, and 3(5) (Common Intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The petitioner previously attempted to quash the FIR through a criminal petition (Criminal Petition No. 2169 of 2025), which was thoroughly dismissed by a coordinate bench (Justice M. Nagaprasanna) on August 5, 2026, ruling that prima facie ingredients of cheating and deception were clearly established on the face of the complaint. Following the dismissal of her quashing plea and subsequent surrender, the petitioner moved for regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC / Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Arguments Advanced by Counsel

Petitioner’s Stand (Defence)

Represented by Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha along with Advocate Nasir Ali, the petitioner argued several key points to justify her enlargement on bail:

• Parity with Co-Accused: The defence heavily emphasized that co-accused individuals facing similar or graver allegations (such as Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3) had already been granted bail by the Sessions Court and a coordinate bench of the High Court.
• Absence of Direct Receipt: It was contended that the complaint lacked direct material proof indicating that the petitioner personally received or pocketed the alleged bribe amounts.
• Punishment Threshold: Counsel highlighted that the maximum sentence for the invoked offenses is imprisonment for up to seven years, and the petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents. Furthermore, non-compliance with notice requirements under Section 35(3) of the BNSS during arrest was pointed out.
• Readiness to Cooperate: The petitioner assured complete cooperation with any ongoing or residual investigation and willingness to abide by strict bail conditions.

State’s Stand (Prosecution)

Represented by Additional State Public Prosecutor (Addl. SPP) M.N. Anoop Kumar, the State fiercely opposed the bail application:

• Gravity of Crime: The prosecution argued that the offenses committed struck at the core foundation of judicial integrity by weaponizing the name of sitting judges to extort money from vulnerable litigants.
• Ongoing Investigation: While charge sheets had been filed against other co-accused, investigation regarding the petitioner was deferred due to her previous interim protections; call detail records (CDRs) and recorded telephonic conversations between the petitioner and the victim were actively being scrutinized.
• Professional Misconduct: Parallel disciplinary proceedings before the Karnataka State Bar Council were noted as evidence of gross professional misconduct, with fears that releasing her could lead to witness tampering or interference with electronic evidence.

Judicial Rationale: Balancing Liberty and Institutional Sanctity

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde carefully evaluated the parameters governing pre-trial bail while addressing the broader moral dimensions of the offense.

Key Findings of the Court:

1. Nature of Custody vs. Progress of Investigation: The court observed that since the investigating agency had already secured crucial electronic evidence, including telephonic conversations and call detail records, the continued physical incarceration of the petitioner was no longer strictly mandatory for custodial interrogation.
2. Principle of Parity: Recognizing that co-accused individuals facing comparable accusations of collecting money under the guise of bribing judges had already secured bail, the court found no legal justification to treat the petitioner differently, particularly given that the maximum punishment capped at seven years did not involve life imprisonment or the death penalty.
3. Severe Condemnation of Professional Misconduct: In a strongly worded concluding observation, the bench remarked:

"Before parting, without reflecting anything on the merits of the prosecution case and the defence of the petitioner, the Court must observe that in case the alleged incident had taken place, it is one of the most unfortunate things to happen as such conduct amounts to highest form of professional misconduct on the part of the advocate. Such an act tarnishes the name of the Judge as well as the institution."

Detailed Bail Conditions Imposed

The Karnataka High Court allowed Criminal Petition No. 15110 of 2026 and directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to the following stringent conditions:

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is the core allegation against advocate Dayeen Banu in this case?

Ans: Advocate Dayeen Banu is accused of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and extortion under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly demanding substantial sums of money from the mother of an accused person under the false pretext that the funds were required to bribe sitting judges of the High Court to secure a favourable bail order.

2. Did the Karnataka High Court dismiss her earlier attempts to quash the FIR?

Ans: Yes. On August 5, 2026, a coordinate bench of the Karnataka High Court (Justice M. Nagaprasanna) dismissed her quashing petition (Criminal Petition No. 2169 of 2025), ruling that the complaint clearly established prima facie ingredients of cheating and deception, and dissolved all interim protections.

3. On what grounds did the High Court grant bail to the petitioner?

Ans: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde granted bail primarily on the grounds of parity with other co-accused who had already been granted bail, the fact that maximum punishment for the offense is seven years, and because the investigating agency had already secured the primary electronic evidence and call records, making prolonged pre-trial detention unnecessary.

4. What strict warnings did the court issue regarding professional integrity?

Ans: The court strongly condemned the actions, stating that exploiting the judicial name to demand bribes constitutes the "highest form of professional misconduct" that severely tarnishes the reputation of judges and discredits the entire justice dispensation system.

5. Are there other parallel proceedings against the accused lawyer?

Ans: Yes. In addition to criminal prosecution under Crime No. 117 of 2024, professional misconduct proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner before the Karnataka State Bar Council, and directions were issued for institutional inquiry.