<p>The court also refused to stay the order summoning the couple by the Lokayukta court and observed that it would be equivalent to stalling the entire proceedings. The couple had requested the high court to quash the proceedings in the lower court which is hearing a private complaint filed by advocate Vinod Kumar.<br /><br />Meanwhile, N K Sudhindra Rao, the judge at the special Lokayukta Court, rejected the anticipatory bail petition the couple had submitted apprehending arrest in the case.<br /><br />The only relief for the couple was when the judge allowed an exemption application from appearing in the court on health grounds and postponed the hearing to September 5. <br /><br />The couple and Vinod Goel of the Janthakal Enterprises have been asked to appear in the special Lokayukta Court on that day. This did not prove to be an advantage, since the JD(S) leader was hoping to file anticipatory bail plea in the high court as soon as possible. September 5 is the next probable date when he can file the petition as the court will be on holiday for the rest of the week. <br /><br />Kumaraswamy’s counsel Hashmath Pasha had argued that no damage would be caused if a stay was granted for a period of two weeks as summoning the accused was a serious matter in which the lower court has not followed the prescribed procedure.<br /><br />Justice K N Keshavanarayana cited Section 19 (3) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which states that no court shall stay the trial court proceedings on any grounds and there was an embargo on the court to pass such orders.<br /><br />He did not issue any orders, but had admitted the petition for further hearing and sent notice to complainant Vinod Kumar. In the Lokayukta court, Kumaraswamy’s counsel had filed an exemption application seeking 15-day time to file anticipatory bail in the High Court and absence from the court on the grounds of poor health. The judge, however, granted only the latter plea.<br /><br /></p>
<p>The court also refused to stay the order summoning the couple by the Lokayukta court and observed that it would be equivalent to stalling the entire proceedings. The couple had requested the high court to quash the proceedings in the lower court which is hearing a private complaint filed by advocate Vinod Kumar.<br /><br />Meanwhile, N K Sudhindra Rao, the judge at the special Lokayukta Court, rejected the anticipatory bail petition the couple had submitted apprehending arrest in the case.<br /><br />The only relief for the couple was when the judge allowed an exemption application from appearing in the court on health grounds and postponed the hearing to September 5. <br /><br />The couple and Vinod Goel of the Janthakal Enterprises have been asked to appear in the special Lokayukta Court on that day. This did not prove to be an advantage, since the JD(S) leader was hoping to file anticipatory bail plea in the high court as soon as possible. September 5 is the next probable date when he can file the petition as the court will be on holiday for the rest of the week. <br /><br />Kumaraswamy’s counsel Hashmath Pasha had argued that no damage would be caused if a stay was granted for a period of two weeks as summoning the accused was a serious matter in which the lower court has not followed the prescribed procedure.<br /><br />Justice K N Keshavanarayana cited Section 19 (3) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which states that no court shall stay the trial court proceedings on any grounds and there was an embargo on the court to pass such orders.<br /><br />He did not issue any orders, but had admitted the petition for further hearing and sent notice to complainant Vinod Kumar. In the Lokayukta court, Kumaraswamy’s counsel had filed an exemption application seeking 15-day time to file anticipatory bail in the High Court and absence from the court on the grounds of poor health. The judge, however, granted only the latter plea.<br /><br /></p>
