Madal Virupakshappa Bribery Case: Karnataka High Court Reserves Order On BJP MLA's Plea For Anticipatory Bail

The Karnataka High Court on Friday reserved its order on the anticipatory bail application filed by BJP Leader Madal Virupakshappa in a bribery case. He was granted granted interim anticipatory bail on March 7.

The Karnataka Lok Ayukta had moved the Supreme Court challenging the Karnataka High Court's order granting interim anticipatory bail to BJP MLA in a bribery case. The matter was mentioned before a bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (the second senior judge), who in turn questioned the urgency. Justice Kaul had then ordered to list the matter "as early as possible", without specifying any date.

Virupakshappa was the Chairman of KSDL but resigned after his son V Prashanth Madal was allegedly caught red-handed by the Lokayukta while accepting a bribe in relation to a contract.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan reserved the order. The petitioner’s counsel contended that “In the FIR there is no allegation against the petitioner, obtaining, accepting, demanding, acceptance to obtain any illegal grant.”

Further it was said that as per the complaint prima facie there is absolutely no material to attract the provisions of Section 7 (a) (b) or (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It was also said that there is a specially constituted tender inviting and accepting committee which decides on manner and modality and even conditions of tender. The petitioner who was then the Chairman of Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd (KSDL) is not part of this.

The petitioner has been granted interim anticipatory bail and is cooperating with the investigation by attending the office of the IO, even today he is appearing before the IO, it was said.

Police custody was strongly opposed by saying “Whatever material that was to recover has been already seized and why do they want the petitioner’s police custody? Only to ensure that my reputation is brought down in society?

It was added that the “Purpose of investigation is already completed, whatever they wanted to collect from me, incriminating and otherwise is all collected, thus the purpose of custody is an empty formality.”

The prosecution as directed by the court filed its statement of objections to the petition and then contended “Sequence of events are there that shows there is demand and acceptance.”

It was also informed that cash was seized from the house of accused no 2 (son of the leader), which was kept in the bedroom of the petitioner. As per the statement given by the daughter-in-law of the petitioner in the trap search mahazar statement.

Further the prosecution submitted that the petitioner has been appearing before the investigation agency, he has not been cooperating in the investigation and giving evasive replies. Thus his custodial interrogation is required.

To which the bench said “What is meant by custodial interrogation. Do you mean he was not in custody when he surrendered before the IO? This order passed by the court where the accused is said to be in deemed custody for the purpose of recovery under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is deemed custody only, whenever he comes to the police.”

It added “Do you want to say that he should be tied to a table or chair and a third degree method you want to use to extract answers from him, as is done in cinema?”

To which the prosecution said “He is a legislator, an MLA, he may have resigned but his influence will not go away, custodial interrogation is required to extract additional information.”

The legislator has approached the court seeking anticipatory bail. An FIR has been registered for offences under section 7(a) & (b), 7(A) 8, 9 & 10 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the petitioner.

According to the case details, a complaint was lodged before the Lokayuktha Police alleging that Virupakshappa demanded illegal gratification to process a certain tender in Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd (KSDL).

Pursuant to the complaint, the Lokayuktha Police registered an FIR for offences under section 7(a) of PC(Amended) Act, 2018 against the petitioner and others. Later, Virupakshappa's son V Prashanth Madal and other accused were allegedly caught red-handed accepting a graft of Rs 40 lakh. It has also been alleged that over Rs 8 crore was recovered by Lokayukta from the MLA's son last week.

Case Title: K. Madal Virupakshappa And State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No 1976/2023