Bengaluru Court Denies Bail to Lawyer Accused in BJP MLA-Linked Murder Case
A special court designated for elected representatives in Bengaluru has firmly rejected the bail petition filed by Ajit, identified as accused number 20 in the high-profile murder case of rowdy-sheeter Shivaprakash, also known as Biklu Shiva. This case has garnered significant attention as it also implicates BJP MLA from KR Pura constituency, BA Basavaraja, as an accused.
Defense Arguments and Prosecution's Counterclaims
During the proceedings, Ajit, who claims to be a practicing advocate by profession, argued that his involvement was purely professional. He stated that he had represented accused numbers 1 and 2 in the case before both the high court and the special court. Ajit contended that merely appearing for the accused and engaging in conversations with them should not be construed as participation in a criminal conspiracy.
However, the special public prosecutor presented a starkly different narrative. The prosecutor submitted that Ajit has a documented criminal background and is actively involved in the real estate business. A rowdy-sheet was previously opened against him by the KR Pura police, though it was closed after a few years.
The prosecution further alleged that after enrolling as an advocate, Ajit played a key role in hatching the criminal conspiracy that led to the murder of Biklu Shiva. It was asserted that he was directly involved in the murder and utilized the mobile phones of his office staff to communicate with accused number 1. Additionally, the investigation revealed that Ajit was continuously engaged in financial transactions funded through proceeds from organized crime.
Court's Rationale for Rejecting Bail
Special Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, after thoroughly perusing the materials on record, emphasized that the investigation process falls entirely within the domain of the investigating agency. The judge pointed out that the request for custodial interrogation cannot be dismissed simply because the allegation against Ajit pertains to entering into a conspiracy.
The court rejected the defense's contention that Ajit was merely providing legal advice and being unfairly castigated for it. Judge Bhat noted that at this stage of the proceedings, such claims cannot be accepted.
Initially, the court had granted interim bail to Ajit to assess whether any privileges of a practicing advocate, as outlined under Section 132 of the Bar Council of India Act, were violated. However, upon reviewing recent case diary files and the Call Detail Record analysis report furnished by the investigating agency, the court found incriminating materials against Ajit.
Consequently, the judge concluded that no infringement of liberty had occurred concerning Ajit, leading to the outright rejection of his bail petition. This decision underscores the court's stance on ensuring a thorough investigation in cases involving serious allegations of conspiracy and organized crime.
