<p>Arguing for Yeddyurappa, who was present in the court for more than an hour on Monday, senior counsel Ravi B Naik said the initial denotification of the land that was earmarked for forming Arkavathy Layout was done by then chief minister H D Kumaraswamy and during the Governor’s rule by then governor Rameshwar Thakur.<br />“They are the ones who initiated it. Since the beneficiaries hail from Shimoga district, they are being called the henchmen of Yeddyurappa,” he said.<br /><br />On the claim that the land was sold three days after it was denotified, the counsel argued that it was the prerogative of the owner of the property to sell the land as and when he/she wanted to. “They know best how to utilise it. Corruption has to be proved. It cannot be presumed,” he argued.<br /><br />Naik also claimed it was not proved whether the documents submitted for the case of illegal denotification of land by Yeddyurappa could actually result in the framing of charges. “The objective cannot be to cater to the ego of the complainant. Only if there is a prima facie case, there is a need to debate whether bail is required. Pre-trial detention should not be by way of punishment,” he said.<br /><br />Arguing on behalf of the complainant, Sirajin Basha, senior counsel C H Hanumantharaya said there was a reason for refraining from mentioning the names of all witnesses in the case. <br /><br />“They are susceptible to any kind of pressure. Therefore, we will produce them at a later date,” he said.<br /><br />Seeking to establish a connection between Yeddyurappa and the other accused, the counsel also said some of the other accused like Akkamahadevi, Mahabaleshwar and M Manjunath belonged to the same community as Yeddyurappa, while the remaining accused did not.<br /><br />“Yeddyurappa is the benefactor in the complaint. All the others belonging to his community are beneficiaries. The rest accused are involved in the transactions and were either go-betweens or facilitators,” he argued.<br /><br />The counsel also raised questions about the counsel for Yeddyurappa in the trial court representing the other accused in the case in the High Court.<br /></p>
<p>Arguing for Yeddyurappa, who was present in the court for more than an hour on Monday, senior counsel Ravi B Naik said the initial denotification of the land that was earmarked for forming Arkavathy Layout was done by then chief minister H D Kumaraswamy and during the Governor’s rule by then governor Rameshwar Thakur.<br />“They are the ones who initiated it. Since the beneficiaries hail from Shimoga district, they are being called the henchmen of Yeddyurappa,” he said.<br /><br />On the claim that the land was sold three days after it was denotified, the counsel argued that it was the prerogative of the owner of the property to sell the land as and when he/she wanted to. “They know best how to utilise it. Corruption has to be proved. It cannot be presumed,” he argued.<br /><br />Naik also claimed it was not proved whether the documents submitted for the case of illegal denotification of land by Yeddyurappa could actually result in the framing of charges. “The objective cannot be to cater to the ego of the complainant. Only if there is a prima facie case, there is a need to debate whether bail is required. Pre-trial detention should not be by way of punishment,” he said.<br /><br />Arguing on behalf of the complainant, Sirajin Basha, senior counsel C H Hanumantharaya said there was a reason for refraining from mentioning the names of all witnesses in the case. <br /><br />“They are susceptible to any kind of pressure. Therefore, we will produce them at a later date,” he said.<br /><br />Seeking to establish a connection between Yeddyurappa and the other accused, the counsel also said some of the other accused like Akkamahadevi, Mahabaleshwar and M Manjunath belonged to the same community as Yeddyurappa, while the remaining accused did not.<br /><br />“Yeddyurappa is the benefactor in the complaint. All the others belonging to his community are beneficiaries. The rest accused are involved in the transactions and were either go-betweens or facilitators,” he argued.<br /><br />The counsel also raised questions about the counsel for Yeddyurappa in the trial court representing the other accused in the case in the High Court.<br /></p>
