'He Is Ex-CM, Not Some Tom, Dick & Harry' : Karnataka High Court Stays Arrest Of BS Yediyurappa In POCSO Case

Update: 2024-06-14 11:43 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article

The Karnataka High Court has restrained the police authorities from arresting former CM BS Yediyurappa in connection with a POCSO case registered against him.The Court has however asked him to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer on June 17th.The order was passed by a single bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while considering an appeal against an order by...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Karnataka High Court has restrained the police authorities from arresting former CM BS Yediyurappa in connection with a POCSO case registered against him.

The Court has however asked him to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer on June 17th.

The order was passed by a single bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while considering an appeal against an order by a Bengaluru Court which issued a non-bailable warrant against the former chief minister. 

 "Holistic view is to be taken. If he was an unscrupulous person, he would not have appeared before IO on the issuance of the first notice. In life so many things happen mandamus issued by highest court would also not be abided by. What heavens will fall in four or five days. The way things are being done there is doubt in the mind of the court that there is some hidden thing," the Bench observed

It added, "Here is an Ex-CM. He followed your first notice and cooperated with the investigation. Then you issued a second notice. It is your power and he said I will come on 17-06-2024, it is not his case that he will not come back to Karnataka."

"He(Yediyurappa) is not some Tom, Dick and Harry; nor he is a bandit, he is former CM of the state. Will he abscond?," Justice Dikshit said.

Advocate General contended that whether or not custodial interrogation is needed or not was the sole discretion of the IO. It was contended that there was tampering and destruction of evidence and therefore his custody was needed.

The Court disagreed with the AG's submissions and stated that the former CM had already given in writing that he would appear before the police on 17th June, and therefore his custody was not needed. "If former CM is being treated like this then what must be happening to a lay man," the Bench quipped.

 


Tags:    

Similar News