BENGALURU: “Why custodial interrogation of IPS officer Srinath Mahadev Joshi is not sought when all other public servants involved in an alleged corruption case have been asked to go for it? Is there a different kind of justice for accused police officers and other public servants, that too in alleged extortion within the Lokayukta institution? This is not fair on the part of the investigating agency...”
This is how, KM Radhakrishna, judge of the Special Court for Lokayukta cases, on Wednesday lambasted the Lokayukta police orally for merely filing “formal objections” to the anticipatory bail petition of Joshi, who served as Lokayukta SP. “Instead of this, the Lokayukta police could have filed an undertaking that they are not going to arrest Joshi. Discrimination in filing objections against the accused just because he is an IPS officer, that too in alleged corruption within the Lokayukta institution, is questionable by the public,” the court added.
“People are keenly watching our approach. But this will definitely make people speak in public tomorrow that there is one kind of justice for accused police officers and another for accused public servants,” said the court.
Joshi filed the anticipatory bail petition before the special court in connection with his alleged nexus with dismissed head constable Ningappa Savanth in extorting crores of rupees from government officials by leaking information about possible Lokayukta raids and investing that money in cryptocurrency.
Public Prosecutor Manjunatha Honnayya Naik stated that Joshi appeared for the inquiry and two of his mobile phones were seized. His voice sample has to be collected. His statement, however, was recorded and there is no apprehension of his arrest, he submitted.
The court asked Naik, “Are you supporting the accused? Why this discrimination? Instead of filing such objections as an eyewash, you could have straight away stated that anticipatory bail can be granted to Joshi or given an undertaking that you are not going to arrest him.”
Senior advocate Sandesh Chouta, appearing for Joshi, argued that his client’s name does not figure in either the complaint or FIR, and there was no demand or acceptance of a bribe. Considering that he is cooperating with the investigation, the petition may be allowed, he requested the court. The court will pass orders on the ail petition on July 18.