 | « Back to article | Print this article |
The special Lokyukta court on August 8 had ordered issue of summons to Yeddyurappa to appear before it on August 27, on a private complaint filed by city-based advocate Sirajin Basha.
Earlier, Yeddyurappa's counsel and noted Supreme Court advocate UU Lalit submitted that denotification was a collective decision involving many departments, including the Bangalore Development Authority and not an individual decision taken by Yeddyurappa. "Merely taking a decision is not illegal," he argued.
Terming the case as one loaded with "political overtones", Lalit cited a Supreme Court judgment in the Gurbaksh Singh case and submitted "today political battles are fought in criminal courts. Liberty of an individual should not get prejudiced."
Lalit submitted, "It is a political battle where Yeddyurappa's profile, his career is under prejudice".
He pointed out that culling out various instances is not enough, "what has to be established is the connection between the instances and the petitioner".
Referring to the Lokayukta police refusing to register the complaint when the complainant had approached them, he said it did not register the complaint as it was not worthy of taking cognisance.
"Not only has any case been made out, custody is not required for investigation as that stage is out and cognizance has already been taken," he stated. "It is fit case for anticipatory bail as an individual's liberty cannot be bartered," Lalit contended.
Senior counsel C H Hanumantharaya representing the complainant argued as to why the petitioner should have "any apprehension of arrest when it is only summons that have been issued and not a warrant.
"The petitioner (Yeddyurappa) can always file an application seeking exemption from personal appearance under section 205 of the CrPC and entrust the matter to an advocate," he said. He argued that the petition was "not maintainable as there is no apprehension of arrest".
After hearing both sides the court reserved its verdict on the petition to August 29. The court also rejected plea of Yeddyurappa's counsel for interim protection.