Supreme Court
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday cancelled the bail granted to Congress MLA and former Minister Vinay Kulkarni in a case related to the murder of a BJP worker in 2016, after finding he and another accused had tried to contact and influence witnesses in violation of conditions imposed upon them.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma directed him to surrender within one week before the concerned trial court, allowing a plea by the CBI.
The apex court also held that the trial court can cancel the bail of an accused even if the relief was granted by the apex court or the High Court.
The CBI was aggrieved with the trial court's April 25, 2024 order which cancelled the bail granted accused Chandrashekhar Indi alias Chandu Mama but declined to pass such an order against Kulkarni as he was allowed to be released on bail by the Supreme Court on August 11, 2021.
The CBI alleged BJP worker Yogeshgouda Goudar, 26, a member of district Panchayat, was hacked to death on June 15, 2016 at his gym in Saptapur in Dharwad after being immobilised with chilli powder, thrown on his face.
The victim's family members suspected role of former Minister and Congress leader Kulkarni in the murder, leading to the decision to hand over the probe to the CBI.
The CBI case is that Kulkarni, who was district in charge minister at the relevant time, did not want Yogesh Goudar to grow as a leader in Dharwad and hired contract killers to eliminate him.
In its plea, the central agency led by Additional Solicitor General S V Raju alleged Kulkarni and another accused tried to wield his influence, and attempted to contact and influence prosecution witnesses more particularly the one identified as Nagappa Bairagonde.
Furthermore, the CBI also claimed one accused, Shivanand Shreshail Biradar, who was pardoned and turned approver, was also contacted by Kulkarni and another accused through friends and known persons to depose against the prosecution on November 15, 2024.
As a result, the approver retracted his statement recorded under Section 164(1) of the CrPC. In this regard, Raju placed reliance on certain CDRs, CCTV footage, and photographs to make good his submission, the court noted.
Kulkarni represented by senior advocates Maninder Singh, opposed the plea for cancellation of bail contending that no condition imposed upon him has been violated. In this regard, the counsel submitted that Kulkarni is a responsible lawmaker who has never meddled with the administration of justice. Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared for accused no 16, Chandu Mama.
Luthra submitted that the bail of Chandu Mama was cancelled by the trial court and a challenge was pending before the High Court in this regard. He urged the court that if it was cancelling the bail to Kulkarni, it should not pass any observation which will affect his matter, pending before the high court. He was aggrieved with certain grounds taken by the CBI in the instant matter against his client who was not a party here.
The bench, however, said, "Having had given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions, we deem it appropriate to consciously refrain from making detailed observations in respect of the allegations levelled by the CBI against Kulkarni in view of the fact that the underlying trial is ongoing. Be that as it may, it would be suffice to state that there is sufficient material on record to suggest that the attempts have been made by Kulkarni to either contact witnesses or alternatively, influence such witnesses."
The court said, keeping in mind the totality of circumstances, the bail granted to Kulkarni ought to be cancelled.
"Consequently, the bail granted to Kulkarni is hereby cancelled," the bench said.
However, the court directed the trial court to make endeavours to conclude the trial expeditiously, without being influenced by any of its observations.
In the case, the trial court took a view that it does not have the jurisdiction to consider the CBI’s application seeking cancellation of regular bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC read with Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023 in view of the fact that Kulkarni was granted regular bail by a coordinate bench of this court.
"The position taken by the trial court is not in consonance with the decision of this court in Gurcharan Singh Vs State (Delhi Admn) (1978)," the bench held.
The bench also said, more so in view of the fact that this court directed Kulkarni to be enlarged on regular bail on such conditions as the trial court deemed appropriate, albeit illustratively listing down certain condition. In this context, the trial court i.e., being a court of Sessions was entitled to entertain an application under Section 439(2) of the CrPC (now 483(3) of the BNSS) seeking cancellation of bail on the grounds of violation of bail conditions imposed by it; notwithstanding the fact that bail was granted by a constitutional court, the bench added.