Yogesh Goudar Murder: CBI Opposes In Karnataka HC Suspension Of Convicted Ex-Cop's Sentence, Says S.389(3) CrPC Doesn't Apply Once Appeal Filed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Tuesday (May 26) opposed the suspension of sentence sought by former police inspector Channakeshava B. Tingarikar, convicted for manipulating evidence and protecting the real perpetrators in the Yogesh Goudar murder case.

Arguing before the Karnataka High Court, CBI submitted that the relief of bail under Section 389(3) CrPC applies only at the trial court stage and ceases to operate once an appeal is filed before the appellate court.

For context, Section 389(3) empowers the trial court to grant immediate bail to a convicted person after their conviction, providing enough time to file a formal appeal and seek regular suspension of sentence.

A Division Bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice S. Rachaiah had earlier indicated that Tingarikar's release application could be decided even in prosecution's absence. It had said the State would have the liberty to approach the court for cancellation of bail, if so granted.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju appearing for the central probe agency however submitted that even though the sentence imposed on Tingarikar is less than ten years, the Court must hear the prosecution before granting any relief under Section 389.

“…Even if the sentence is less than ten years, the prosecution is entitled to be heard. The provision under sub-section (3) applies only at the trial court stage for the purpose of enabling the convict to present an appeal. Once the appeal is already filed, sub-section (3) ceases to operate – the appellate court's discretion under sub-section (1) would apply; it is limited to such extent that it must hear the prosecution if it chooses to appear," ASG Raju submitted.

The ASG argued that the provision (Section 389(3)) was intended only to enable a convicted person to prepare and file an appeal, and once the appeal is already before the appellate court, the suspension of sentence must be sought under sub-section (1) where the court has discretion to decide the matter after hearing the prosecution.

On the other hand, senior counsel PP Hegde appearing for Tingarikar argued that he was only found guilty of bailable offences under Sections 201 and 218 of the IPC, thereby entitling him to suspension of sentence under Section 389(3) of the CrPC (Section 430 of BNSS).

The Bench, after hearing both sides, directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on Friday (May 29). An impleading application filed by the victim's family (Yogesh Gowdar's family) was also directed to be taken up on the same day.

Tingarikar was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) and three years under Section 218 (public servant framing incorrect record) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly). He has now preferred an appeal against conviction before the High Court and sought suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

To recap, Yogesh Goudar, a Zilla Panchayat member of the BJP from Hebballi constituency, was brutally murdered by an armed gang at his gym in Saptapur, Dharwad, in June 2016. The Dharwad Police initially arrested six persons and filed a chargesheet. Later, the investigation was transferred to the CBI.

On April 15, 2026, a Special Court in Dharwad convicted former Karnataka Minister and Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni and 16 others. Kulkarni was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder. The Special Court also convicted Tingarikar, the Investigating Officer, for manipulating the investigation, protecting the real perpetrators, and destroying evidence.

The High Court is also currently seized of separate appeals filed by Vinay Kulkarni and another co-accused, Chandrasekhar, seeking suspension of their life sentences. Those matters are expected to be taken up on June 2.

CBI was directed to file its detailed objections by June 2, 2026, on the two appeals with a warning that failure to do so would result in the court proceeding without them.

When senior counsel Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the Ex-MLA Kulkarni, expressed his concern for the CBI not filing the objections to this date and his client's disqualification as an MLA continuing, the court remarked:

“….The order of disqualification is subsequent to the order of conviction. We will have it on the reopening day”, the division bench told.

The Bench made it clear that while the appeals preferred by Kulkarni and Chandrasekhar would not be taken up during the vacation, the interim application for suspension of sentence by the investigating officer would be decided on its own merits after hearing both sides.

Case Title: Channakeshava B. Tingarikar v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case No.: Crl.A No. 775/2026