Karnataka High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To KPSC Member Accused Of Favouring Candidate In KAS Interview

Taking a strict stance, Karnataka High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Dr. Shantha Hosamani, a member of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC), who is accused of receiving illegal gratification to favour a candidate in the KAS examination interview.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 424]

The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, while dismissing the petition, observed that the records submitted by the prosecution 'prima facie' indicated that the accused misused her office for unlawful gain.

“….Such acts result in public losing faith in the system and thousands of students, who are otherwise meritorious, are deprived appointments. In such situations, no matter how high the office the accused holds, he or she is to be treated on an equal footing by law, with iron hands… a thorough investigation in this type of cases is necessary to unearth the roots of crime, involvement of other persons within and outside the Institution, particulars of undeserving candidates who have been favoured, modus operandi followed by the accused etc., so as to curb and restore faith in the system.”, the court opined.

The KPSC member-doctor is the prime accused in a crime registered by the Vidhana Soudha Police Station, which is currently being investigated by the CID. The FIR was registered after The FIR was registered after Kanthakumar R., President of the All-Karnataka State Students Association, preferred a complaint before the police

According to the FIR, the doctor was part of the interview committee, and had received illegal gratification from the second-accused who appeared for the KAS recruitment examination. The specific allegation against the first accused-KPSC member was that she favoured second accused-candidate during the interview held on May 8, 2026. Accordingly, Section 10 of the Karnataka Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Corruption and Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2023, has been invoked in the FIR against the KSPC member, which carries a maximum punishment of twelve years of imprisonment.

Previously, the member's anticipatory bail plea was rejected by a Sessions Court on September10, 2026. Aggrieved, she approached the High Court for bail.

Senior Advocate S. Vivek Reddy, appearing for the KPSC member, argued that she is a doctor with no criminal antecedents. It was also submitted that the accused had fully cooperated with the investigation. However, the police were not able to find any incriminating material had been collected against her so far, and hence the custodial interrogation would be unnecessary.

On the other hand, the state argued that the petitioner and the candidate had not cooperated with the police. It was also submitted that statements of both accused regarding their acquaintance with each other were contradictory.

Since the involvement of other persons within and outside the institution could not be ruled out, the state vehemently contended for denying the bail.

KPSC had produced marks chart of candidates in a sealed cover[since selection list was not out yet], including the marks of the accused number no.2 candidate.

After hearing both parties, the single judge bench chose to disagree with the petitioner's argument that custodial interrogation was not necessary.

“…. Even in a case where custodial interrogation may not be required, the Court is required to consider other aspects of the case, like nature and gravity of allegations, impact of the crime on society, chances of accused tampering evidence and yielding influence etc. while considering prayer for pre-arrest bail. The necessity of custodial interrogation is a question to be decided by the concerned Court at the time when remand is prayed for…”, the court added.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the criminal petition. However, the court also went on to clarify that the rejection of anticipatory bail does not automatically mean the accused must be taken into custody.

“…Depending upon the material collected, circumstances and the conduct of accused, the Investigation Officer is required to exercise his discretion and take an objective view on the requirement of custody of an accused”, the Court said.