New Delhi: In a significant development in the long-drawn 2016 murder case of BJP leader Yogesh Gowda, the Supreme Court on June 6 cancelled the bail granted to Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni, who is one of the prime accused in the case. The apex court also directed the legislator to surrender before the concerned trial court or jail authority within a week.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict while hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) plea challenging the bail granted to Kulkarni. The bench noted that the accused had violated the conditions of his bail and had made attempts to contact and influence witnesses in the case — a serious breach that prompted the court to revoke his bail.
Vinay Kulkarni, who represents the Dharwad Assembly constituency in Karnataka, was arrested in November 2020 in connection with the high-profile murder of BJP leader Yogesh Gowda, who was killed on June 15, 2016. At the time of the murder, Gowda was a Zilla Panchayat member and a rising leader in the BJP. He was attacked and killed at his gym in Saptapura Layout in Dharwad, a move that sent shockwaves through the political corridors of Karnataka.
The case took a political turn when suspicions of conspiracy and rivalry within political factions began to emerge. As pressure mounted, the Karnataka government ordered a CBI probe into the matter. The federal agency, after a detailed investigation, arrested Vinay Kulkarni, who was then a cabinet minister in the Siddaramaiah-led Congress government.
Kulkarni was granted bail by the Supreme Court on August 11, 2021, after he had repeatedly applied for bail following his arrest. However, the CBI later approached the apex court, alleging that Kulkarni and co-accused Chandrashekhar Indi had attempted to tamper with the investigation by offering money and exerting pressure on witnesses. According to the CBI’s petition, witnesses were allegedly offered ₹1 lakh to change their statements — a claim that the court found concerning enough to cancel the bail.
Delivering the order, the Supreme Court bench observed: “Considering the totality of circumstances, we find it appropriate to cancel the bail granted to the accused. There is sufficient material to suggest that the accused tried to contact and influence the witnesses, which violates the conditions of the bail granted earlier.” The court further added, “The accused shall surrender before the concerned trial court/jail authority within a week from today.”
Significantly, the bench also directed the trial court to expedite the trial without being influenced by any observations made by the Supreme Court in this particular order. While the court refrained from elaborating on the detailed allegations put forth by the CBI, it noted that the allegations regarding witness tampering were serious and substantiated enough to warrant cancellation of bail.
Arguments from both sides
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing MLA Vinay Kulkarni, argued that his client had not violated any bail condition and insisted that there was no interference with the judicial process. He pointed out that Kulkarni is a sitting MLA and a responsible public representative who had cooperated fully with the investigation. Singh urged the court to reject the CBI’s plea and allow his client to remain on bail.
However, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the CBI, maintained that the accused had clearly breached the bail conditions. He submitted before the court that both Kulkarni and co-accused Chandrashekhar Indi had used their political clout to influence witnesses, thereby obstructing justice. The bench was informed that some witnesses had reported attempts of inducement and pressure from the accused, undermining the sanctity of the trial process.
The cancellation of bail is likely to create a major setback for Kulkarni and the Congress party in Karnataka, especially at a time when the state is already witnessing heightened political activity over various issues. With this order, Kulkarni could be sent back to jail within the next few days unless he seeks any further relief, which, given the tone of the court’s observations, appears unlikely.
Comments