The Karnataka High Court
Credit: DH Photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court has dismissed the petition filed by former minister and Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni in the Yogish Goudar murder case.
Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said that when the Apex Court had cancelled the bail on the ground of violation of conditions without reserving liberty, it would be against judicial propriety for any other court to reconsider and grant bail. The case pertains to the killing of BJP Zilla Panchayat member Yogesh Goudar in Dharwad on June 15, 2016. After the case was transferred to the CBI, the central agency filed a second additional charge sheet, including Vinay Kulkarni as an accused for the offences under IPC sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 302 and under section 25 read with sections 3, 5, 8 and 29 of the Arms Act.
On August 11, 2021, the Apex Court had granted bail to him which was subsequently cancelled by the Apex Court itself on June 6, 2025. The petitioner Kulkarni again approached the trial court seeking regular bail on changed circumstances. It was submitted that all material witnesses had been examined in the case and it was only the evidence of official witnesses that remained. The counsel for the petitioner argued on the ground of parity submitting that other co-accused whose bail was also cancelled on the ground of violation of bail conditions had the benefit of bail order restored by the high court.
On the other hand, P Prasanna Kumar, appearing for the CBI, submitted that there were certain other witnesses, who were yet to be examined in the trial. He also said that the cancellation of bail by the Apex Court had disentitled the petitioner to seek fresh bail as the Apex Court had not reserved liberty to seek for fresh bail.
Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav observed that while cancelling the bail granted to Vinay Kulkarni, the Apex Court had stated that there was sufficient material on record that attempts had been made by him to either contact witnesses or alternatively, influence such witnesses. The high court further noted that the order cancelling bail did not reserve liberty to approach again and a further direction by the Apex Court to complete trial expeditiously would in fact indicate that the top court intended to mitigate the long incarceration by directing speedy conclusion of the trial.
“The ground of ‘change in circumstances’ may be a ground for reconsideration of an order rejecting bail, but would be of no avail where the bail is cancelled for violation of conditions imposed. When the bail granted is cancelled for violation of bail conditions, the accused essentially disentitles himself of exercise of judicial discretion subsequently. The subsequent events of nearing completion of examination of witnesses are of no relevance,” Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said.
The court further clarified that it had not recorded any finding regarding the merits of the claim and had merely disposed of the petition holding that petitioner is required to approach the Apex Court itself.