Today(14th June),The Karnataka High Court has granted a stay on the arrest of BJP leader and former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa in a case under the POCSO Act, questioning the necessity for his immediate detention and rejecting the state’s allegation of notice evasion.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court today(14th June), stayed the arrest of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa in connection with a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Justice S Krishna Dixit presided over the hearing and raised critical questions regarding the necessity of arresting Yediyurappa. The Court expressed skepticism over the State’s allegation that the former Chief Minister had deliberately evaded a notice issued on June 11, which required him to appear before the investigating officer. According to the State, Yediyurappa flew to Delhi hours after the notice was issued, citing prior party commitments.
The Advocate General (AG), Shashi Kiran Shetty, argued-
“(Plane) ticket was booked only after the notice was issued to him.”
This assertion was aimed at supporting the claim that Yediyurappa had avoided the notice intentionally.
However, the Court was not convinced by this argument. It noted that Yediyurappa, being a former Chief Minister, was unlikely to abscond. The Court also pointed out that Yediyurappa had responded to the June 11 notice, stating that he would appear before the Investigating Officer on June 17.
“He’s not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry. He’s a former Chief Minister of the state. Do you really think he will flee the country? What could he achieve by traveling from Bangalore to Delhi?”
-the Court remarked, highlighting the improbability of Yediyurappa fleeing.
Given Yediyurappa’s written commitment to appear before the investigating officer on June 17, the single-judge ordered that no coercive action be taken against him. The Court emphasized the need for careful consideration before jumping to conclusions about the necessity of arrest and detention for custodial interrogation, especially considering Yediyurappa’s advanced age and related health conditions.
“We cannot hastily decide to arrest and detain the petitioner, a former Chief Minister of the State who is elderly and has age-related ailments, for custodial interrogation. The court has postponed proceedings for his arrest and detention until the next hearing.”
-the Court stated in its order.
Nonetheless, the Court mandated that Yediyurappa must appear before the jurisdictional police for investigation on June 17. During the hearing, the Court also questioned the bona fides of the case, suggesting that there might be underlying issues not immediately apparent.
“The way events unfolded raises suspicions that there may be something concealed in this matter.”
– the Court observed.
To this, the AG responded-
“No hidden agenda, milord.”
Former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa has sought anticipatory bail from the High Court after an arrest warrant was issued against him by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court-I) NM Ramesh. The warrant stems from allegations of molestation involving a 17-year-old girl.
During the hearing, the High Court posed several questions to the prosecution regarding the urgency and necessity of Yediyurappa’s arrest. The Court remarked, “Here is an ex-Chief Minister. He scrupulously complied with the first notice. Then, you issue one more notice, it is your power, privilege, and authority. And he said, I will come on 17th. It is not his case he (Yediyurappa) will never come back to Karnataka! He said he is coming back in writing – still you want to arrest him.” The Court further pondered, “If an ex-Chief Minister is treated that way, I am just wildly thinking what will happen to layman.”
The case involves serious allegations against Yediyurappa, with the complainant, who is the victim’s mother, accusing him of molesting her 17-year-old daughter. The mother alleged that Yediyurappa took her daughter into a room and sexually harassed her behind locked doors during a visit to his residence on March 14.
The police filed a first information report (FIR) under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354(A) of the IPC for sexual harassment of a minor. Following this, the State government appointed senior lawyer Ashok N Naik as the special public prosecutor to handle the case against Yediyurappa.
Yediyurappa’s advocate, CV Nagesh, argued that the complainant had a history of filing frivolous cases, including against her own family members.
“Complainant has been filing cases against husband, son, anybody and everybody on this earth! Against bureaucrats,”
– Nagesh contended.
He emphasized the need to assess the credibility of the complainant, noting-
“We have to assess the credibility of the complainant. You said she is an estranged spouse. Relevant factor is she has lodged a complaint against many people.”
Nagesh highlighted that Yediyurappa had complied with the investigation process, responding to a Section 41A notice from the investigating officer (IO).
ALSO READ: Senior BJP Leader BS Yediyurappa Charged Under POCSO Act by 17-Year-Old
He stated-
“It is evident that the investigating officer did not deem the arrest of petitioner (Yediyurappa) necessary, as indicated by the issuance of notice under 41A.”
He further added-
“On April 12, 2024, I (Yediyurappa) appeared before the Investigating Officer willingly to assist in the investigation. I provided my statement and voice sample, yet subsequently, a warrant was issued against me.”
The single-judge bench questioned the reasons behind the sudden issuance of an arrest warrant after Yediyurappa had already complied with initial notices.
The judge asked the Advocate General-
“Did he appear for investigation on April 12th?”
to which the AG confirmed-
“There is no dispute on that; he provided his voice sample solely for recording purposes.”
The Court pressed further-
“Why do you want to arrest him?” asked the AG. In response, it was stated, “His voice sample was tested, and we subsequently issued a notice on June 11th.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Adjourns K Kavitha’s Plea Against ED Summons in Delhi Excise Policy Case
The Court inquired about the timeline of events, asking-
“You didn’t have any issues until June 10th? When did the reports arrive?”
to which the AG replied-
“It came on May 13.”
