BENGALURU: In a relief to former minister and BJP MLA BA Basavaraj aka Byrathi Basavaraj, an accused in the Bikla Shiva aka Shivaprakash murder case, the Karnataka High Court on Friday set aside the approval given by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to invoke the provisions of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 (KCOCA) against him. However, the court rejected his interlocutory application seeking anticipatory bail.
As the approval given for invoking these provisions against the offence and not to the particular offender, it has the effect of setting it aside in its entirety, the court noted. Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the petition filed by Basavaraj questioning the invoking of Sections 3 and 4 of the KCOCA, following the approval given by the Inspector General of Police, CID, on August 12, 2025.
The court noted that the legal requirement of organised crime, which involves ‘continuing unlawful activity’ as contemplated under Sections 2(1)(d)(e) of KCOCA, is not satisfied in this case. None of the other accused persons has two charge sheets involving offences punishable with more than three years.
The court said that it is only against the accused No. 18, Patrick, that there were two charge sheets that would fall within the requirement of punishment of imprisonment with three years or more, which, however, would not fall within the definition of ‘Organised Crime’ as contemplated in Section 2(1)(e). Therefore, the order of approval for invoking KCOCA provisions is defective. Accordingly, the order of approval dated August 12, 2025, is set aside.
As the invocation of KCOCA is against the offence, the order of approval is not particular to the offender, and its setting aside in the present petition, though at the instance of one accused, has the effect of setting it aside in its entirety, the court noted.
No anticipatory bail
Giving reasons for the denial of anticipatory bail to accused Byrathi, the court noted that it finds prima facie force in the contention of the Additional State Public Prosecutor (ASPP) B N Jagadeesha.
The custodial interrogation is a legal option available to the investigating agency. There is no reason to deny such exercise of power. Further, the material would indicate that the deceased had in writing stated that henchmen of Byrathi had threatened him, the court said, referring to ASPP’s arguments.
The court, however, reserved the liberty for him to approach the appropriate court of sessions for bail as permissible in law, keeping all contentions open. The accused had directly approached the high court for anticipatory bail on the premise that KCOCA had invoked. Such a bar can no longer be pleaded in the light of his petition against the KCOCA, which is allowed, the court noted.
The court observed that it is not inclined to exercise the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in the light of the factual matrix of the case narrated in the order. Such exercise of power is in exceptional circumstances, which this court finds is absent in this case. Further investigation is still to be completed. Partial interrogation has been made. However, at the time of the arguments, the state had taken a stand that custodial interrogation is required. An order granting anticipatory bail may interfere with the investigation of a heinous offence, the court observed.
Meanwhile, Basavaraj withdrew the petition filed by him questioning the legality of criminal proceedings pending the crime in question.