Yogesh Gowda Murder Case : CBI Could Not Walk-In & Hijack Trial Without Magistrate's Permission, Argues Rohatgi For Accused Vinay Kulkarni

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi while arguing bail plea filed by former Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni who was arrested on November 5, 2020, in connection with the murder of Zilla panchayat member Yogeeshgouda Goudar told Supreme Court today that the CBI, without Magistrate's permission to conduct further investigation under section 173(8) CrPC, could not walk in and hijack the trial. "The CBI could not have walked in & hijacked the trial without the Magistrate under section 173(8) CrPC to conduct further investigation. Law doesn't talk about intimation but permission. Judge is not a post office. When they walked in & submitted this memo, they had to take Magistrate's permission which they didn't take," submitted Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi. The matter was before the division bench of Justice UU Lalit and Justice Ajay Rastogi. Arguing for grant of bail, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi in today's hearing drew Court's attention to the different versions in the challans submitted by the police and CBI wherein the local police probe identified that property dispute was the reason behind the murder but the CBI investigation pointed out that the policitcal rivalry led to the crime. "There were 3 challans in this case. The first was by the Police. A1 is the main assailant who killed him & A1 to A7 were on bail. A1 to A6 are the original accused in the state police challan. The case in the state police challan was that there was some land dispute between the accused & the deceased. Now see the political dispute in challan number 2. The story is different here," Senior Counsel Rohatgi contended. It was also his contention that the present matter was a case of fresh or reinvestigation and not further investigation which was only permissible by the Constitutional Courts and not the Magistrate's Court. "My client deserves bail on facts, on account of political vendetta, on 4 different stories. This is not a case of further investigation. This is a case of fresh stroke reinvestigation," Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi averred. Opposing the bail, ASG SV Raju appearing for the CBI argued that the case was of further investigation and not reinvestigation and that the state was empowered to order further investigation under section 173(8) of the CrPC, 1973. "Purpose of further investigation is to do justice. The previous investigation was controlled by Vinay Kulkarni. He even named as to who would be the Public Prosecutor. The conspiracy is hatched for the murder of Yogesh. It doesn't end with the murder of Yogesh but it further includes the person who is innocent as accused," ASG Raju further argued. Pointing out to the fact that the CCTV footage showing involvement of Accused 7 to Accused 14 was not taken on record as evidence due to some technical ground, ASG Raju contented that Kulkarni was involved in every step of the conspiracy. "It has come on record that the police was bribed by giving 2 lakh rupees. The witnesses were taken to a hotel & were tutored by the advocates. All of this was there in the CBI's investigation. Vinay Kulkarni has taken part in every step. Witness & police tampered, assailants were given refugee," ASG Raju further argued. Litigious Chain On July 8, 2021, the Court had issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation and State of Karnataka in a bail plea filed by former Karnataka minister Vinay Kulkarni who was arrested on November 5, 2020 in connection with the murder of Zilla panchayat member Yogeeshgouda Goudar. The bench of Justice UU Lalit, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Aniruddha Bose while issuing notice to CBI and State of Karnataka had directed them to file their responses on or before July 20, 2021. Appearing for former Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi had submitted that since A1 was a political person, even if there were numerous calls between the Vinay Kulkarni and A1, they were arising purely out of their political connection or acquaintance and the statements that appeared in paragraph 33 of the judgment did not arise from any investigation undertaken by the CBI nor anything had been reflected in the charge sheet. It was also his contention that the main offenders, namely, A-1 to A-6 were already enjoying the facility of bail and even out of subsequently added accused, A-7 had also been released on bail. On February 20, 2020, the Top Court had stayed the Karnataka High Court order dated November 21, 2019 and had issued notice in a plea filed by the CBI. What Was The Yogesh Gowda Murder Case Yogesh Gowda, a Zilla panchayat member of the BJP from Hebballi constituency was murdered by an armed gang at his gym in Saptapur in Dharwad on June 15, 2016. The Dharwad Police subsequent to his murder arrested six persons and charge-sheeted them for murder. Supported by BJP leaders, Gurunath Goudar, brother of Yogeeshgouda...

Yogesh Gowda Murder Case : CBI Could Not Walk-In & Hijack Trial Without Magistrate's Permission, Argues Rohatgi For Accused Vinay Kulkarni

Shruti Kakkar

Opposing the bail, the counsel for CBI argued that the case was not of reinvestigation and that the state was empowered to order further investigation under section 173(8) of the CrPC, 1973.

Tags