Yediyurappa moves HC for quashing of Pocso case; court extends relief from arrest
A single bench of justice Krishna S Dixit extended the relief it had granted to Yediyurappa on June 14 as the latter’s plea for anticipatory bail came up for fresh hearing, and permitted the prosecution to file its objection to the petition. It also sought CID’s response to a second petition filed by the BJP leader, seeking quashing of the case.
The Karnataka high court on Friday extended its interim order restraining the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) from arresting senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former chief minister BS Yediyurappa in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, even as the 81-year-old approached court, seeking quashing of the case.
A single bench of justice Krishna S Dixit extended the relief it had granted to Yediyurappa on June 14 as the latter’s plea for anticipatory bail came up for fresh hearing, and permitted the prosecution to file its objection to the petition. It also sought CID’s response to a second petition filed by the BJP leader, seeking quashing of the case.
The developments came a day after CID, which is probing the allegations, filed a charge sheet against Yediyurappa at the Fast Track Court 1 for Pocso Act cases in Bengaluru.
“The extension of the restrictions on arrest will continue till the next hearing. The matter has been posted for next week,” a court official aware of the developments said, seeking anonymity.
“CID has been asked to file its objections to the plea on anticipatory bail and another petition seeking quashing of the case,” the official added.
Senior CID officers did not comment on the ongoing legal proceedings.
Yediyurappa was booked on March 14 under provisions of the Pocso Act and Indian Penal Code after the teenager’s mother, in a complaint with police, alleged he molested her daughter during a meeting at his residence in Dollars Colony in February this year.
The case was handed over to CID for a detailed inquiry, even as the veteran BJP leader dismissed the allegation and vowed to deal with it legally.
In its 714-page charge sheet filed on Thursday, CID alleged that Yediyurappa sexually abused the minor at his residence on February 2 when the mother-daughter duo visited him to seek help in another abuse case.
The document, reviewed by HT, outlined the sequence of events, saying Yediyurappa held the girl’s hand and took her to a meeting room, secured the door, and asked her if she remembered the face of the person who previously harmed her. When she responded affirmatively twice, he inquired about her age and then touched her inappropriately, the probe agency said.
The charge sheet also alleged that Yediyurappa offered money to the girl and her mother. “He took some money from his pocket and put it in the hand of the aggrieved girl and went out. Then the accused told the complainant who was sitting in the hall that he would not be able to do anything in her case,” it said.
CID further alleged that on February 20, after the complainant uploaded a video related to the incident at Yediyurappa’s residence on her Facebook account, the BJP leader, through his accomplices, coerced her into deleting the clip. After the mother died of cancer in May, the survivor’s brother approached the high court with a complaint that the probe into the incident had not made any progress.
The charge sheet lists 74 witnesses and also names Arun YM, M Rudresh and G Mariswamy – Yediyurappa’s aides, as accused.
In addition to charges of sexual harassment and assault under section 354A (sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 8 of the Pocso Act, Yediyurappa faces charges under sections 204 (destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence) and 214 (offering gift or restoration of property in consideration of screening offender) of IPC.
Yediyurappa has been questioned by CID twice so far.
While restraining CID from arresting the BJP leader on June 14, the high court had criticised the state over its approach and the need to apprehend him. “If an ex-chief minister is treated that way, I am just wildly thinking, what will happen to a layman… the way things have happened, there is doubt that there is something hidden in this matter,” the court said.