Bengaluru: A special court for elected representatives rejected the bail petition filed by Ajit, accused No 20 in the rowdy-sheeter Shivaprakash alias Biklu Shiva murder case, in which BJP MLA from KR Pura constituency BA Basavaraja is also an accused.Ajit claimed he was an advocate by profession and represented accused no. 1 and 2 in the case before the high court, apart from the special court. He argued merely because he appeared for the accused and had some conversations with them, the said professional activity could not be termed as conspiracy.
On the other hand, the special public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner, accused no. 20, had a criminal background and was involved in real estate business. A rowdy-sheet was opened against him by KR Pura police, and it was closed after a few years.The prosecutor said later, accused no 20 enrolled as an advocate and was also involved in hatching the criminal conspiracy for committing the murder of the deceased Biklu Shiva. He was involved in the murder, and he used the mobile phones of his office staff to contact and communicate with accused no. 1. During the course of the investigation, it was also noticed that he was continuously involved in financial transactions acquired through funds derived from organised crime, the SPP further added.After perusing the materials on record, special judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat pointed out that the investigation process is the complete domain of the investigation agency, and seeking custodial interrogation cannot be declined for the reason that the allegation against the present accused is of entering into conspiracy.The contention that accused no. 20 only gave legal advice, for which he was being castigated, cannot be accepted at this juncture. This court at the inception granted the present accused no. 20 interim bail for the reason that it was required to appreciate whether any privilege of a practising advocate, as enumerated under Sec 132 of BSA, was violated.Since it is noticed from the recent CD files furnished by the IO about the incriminating materials available against him, and also in the wake of the CDR analysis report furnished by the investigating agency, the court is of the opinion that no infringement of liberty pertaining to the present accused person took place, the judge further added, while rejecting the bail petition.
