Karnataka High Court Demands Action Against Police Officials in BJP MLA Murder Case
The Karnataka High Court has issued a stern directive to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to initiate action against Bengaluru police officials who allegedly protected a BJP MLA accused in a high-profile murder case. This significant development occurred during the hearing of an anticipatory bail plea filed by BJP MLA Byrathi Basavaraj, who faces charges in the murder of real estate operator Bikla Shiva, also known as V G Shivaprakash.
Court Questions Police Conduct During Bail Hearing
A single-judge bench presided over by Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav made oral observations this week while considering the anticipatory bail application. The court specifically questioned why no disciplinary measures had been taken against police officials who appeared to be hand in glove with the BJP legislator and his associates. Justice Yadav emphasized that if the state police had failed to perform their duties according to law, appropriate action must follow to demonstrate bona fides in the investigation process.
The special public prosecutor, B N Jagadeesh, informed the court that action against erring officials was in the pipeline but had been delayed to avoid compromising the ongoing murder investigation. He revealed that the CID had uncovered additional material beyond departmental action that required careful handling to prevent precipitating the situation.
Allegations of Police Protection and False Reporting
During arguments, the prosecution presented compelling evidence suggesting police complicity. The SPP alleged that an assistant commissioner of police had submitted a false report to the Bengaluru police commissioner regarding a threat complaint filed months before the murder. While the ACP claimed the suspect hadn't responded to police notices, documents obtained through RTI revealed the suspect had actually responded through legal counsel.
Key revelations from the hearing include:
- The murder victim had filed an attempt to murder complaint in March 2025, nearly three months before his death
- Police machinery allegedly shielded the BJP MLA and associates despite prior complaints
- Evidence of recorded statements on threat complaints was missing from official documents
- The suspect from the February 2025 threat complaint is now an accused in the murder case
Controversy Over Interim Bail and Investigation Details
The hearing witnessed heated exchanges between the prosecution and defense regarding the interim bail granted to the BJP MLA. The CID argued that the vacation bench had improperly granted interim bail since the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita contains no provision for such relief. They further contended that the MLA had exhausted his right to seek anticipatory bail after previous interim protection was withdrawn.
Defense counsel Sandesh Chouta objected to the prosecution's characterization of the interim bail as having been "obtained" and suggested the CID should have approached the Supreme Court if aggrieved by the vacation bench's order. The defense maintained that the MLA had fully cooperated with investigations and wasn't named in initial chargesheets.
Investigation findings presented in court:
- The BJP MLA allegedly lied to police during July 2025 interrogation about knowing key accused
- Evidence shows frequent communication and movement together between the MLA and accused
- A joint trip to Prayagraj for Kumbh Mela in February 2025 was documented
- Nineteen people have been arrested so far in connection with the July 15, 2025 murder
Broader Implications and Ongoing Proceedings
The case has raised serious questions about police accountability and political influence in criminal investigations. The victim, Bikla Shiva, was reportedly involved in property disputes and had a criminal record of making fake claims, adding complexity to the investigation. The court's intervention highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring impartial investigations, particularly when allegations involve public officials.
At the conclusion of arguments, the special public prosecutor gave an undertaking that police would initiate action against erring officials in the Bikla Shiva murder case. The developments underscore the ongoing tension between law enforcement agencies and the judicial system in high-stakes criminal cases involving political figures.
The anticipatory bail hearing continues as the court examines the intricate details of police conduct, the validity of interim bail provisions, and the broader implications for justice delivery in cases with political dimensions. The outcome could set important precedents for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding police accountability and the treatment of elected representatives facing serious criminal charges.
