E-Paper
BJP legislator sent to jail till April 11 in corruption case
The court adjourned Virupakshappa’s bail plea till April 6 and asked Lokayukta Police to file objections by then, if any.
Bengaluru: A Bengaluru court has remanded Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Madal Virupakshappa to judicial custody till April 11 in a corruption case. On March 28 the court had given 5-day custody of the legislator to the Lokayukta Police, which ended on Saturday.
The court adjourned Virupakshappa’s bail plea till April 6 and asked Lokayukta Police to file objections by then, if any.
Virupakshappa had been remandd to 5-day police custody after Karnataka Lokayukta police arrested the Channagiri MLA hours after the Karnataka high court rejected his anticipatory bail application in the corruption case.
On March 2, Virupakshappa was named the main accused in the corruption case lodged by the Lokayukta after his son was caught taking a bribe of ₹40 lakh. In the raids that followed, Lokayukta authorities recovered ₹6.1 crore in cash from his Sanjay Nagar residence and ₹2.2 crore from his office. A total of ₹8.23 crore in cash, a huge quantity of gold and silver ornaments, and large investments in land in Karnataka were allegedly uncovered.
In the days following this arrest, the MLA had accepted that the huge cache of money found in his house belonged to his family. He claimed: “Our taluk is known as the land of arecanut (supari). An ordinary farmer in our arecanut land has ₹5 to 6 crore at home. I have 125 acres arecanut farm, arecanut market, and I have many other businesses as well. I will furnish the appropriate documents to the Lokayukta and get back my money.”
However, Virupakshappa’s bail application was rejected by justice K Natarajan of the special court for elected representatives on Monday claiming there were enough reasons for questioning the accused in custody, leading to his arrest.
“I am of the view that the petitioner-accused No.1 is not entitled to anticipatory bail as he is required for custodial interrogation,” the judge said. “Though this court granted the interim anticipatory bail until disposal of the case because there was no material found in the FIR (first information report) at that time, but now, there is sufficient evidence to show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence.”
Virupakshappa claimed the allegations made in the FIR were absurd and there was no sufficient ground to proceed against him, a Lokayukta police officer said. “While hearing his plea, the bench had given him interim bail till the disposal of the anticipatory bail petition,” the officer said, seeking anonymity. “The court has rejected the anticipatory bail and thus the interim bail also stands cancelled.”
