Yeddyurappa's counsel against ASG arguing case

The Special CBI court hearing the anticipatory bail application of former chief minister B S Yeddyurappa and his family members witnessed some heated arguments on Friday.

The counsel representing Yeddyurappa’s sons, questioned the locus standi of the Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising, to argue the case on behalf of the CBI.

Senior counsel C V Nagesh, appearing on behalf of B Y Vijayendra and B Y Raghavendra, argued that only a Special Public Prosecutor appointed by State government or the Union government could argue the case on behalf of the CBI.

Refusal

When Indira said that an application should be submitted on the issue, Nagesh refused to do so and said an oral submission had already been made and there was no need to make a written submission. Indira also argued that no objections were made when Mohan Parasaran, the Additional Solicitor General had appeared for the CBI on other days.

Judge D R Venkata Sudarshan adjourned the matter for tomorrow, after directing Nagesh to file an application in this regard. The arguments on the anticipatory bail petitions will continue on Saturday also.

Earlier, Supreme Court senior counsel V Nageshwar Rao, appearing for Yeddyurappa, argued that among the several instances being investigated by the CBI, the case of payment of money mentioned in Chapter 22 of the Lokayukta final report had been rejected by the High Court, since no material was placed before it to support the allegations, he said.

He further argued that the High Court had already granted an anticipatory bail in an instance of denotification which was a part of a private complaint filed in the Special Lokayukta Court, filed by Sirajin Basha.

Speaking about CBI objecting to anticipatory bail for the purpose of custodial interrogation, Rao contended that it would become relevant only if the investigations had already commenced and if the accused was not cooperating with the investigation, and not before. “There is no evidence that the accused and his family members have not cooperated. Custody should be the last resort.”