<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has rejected petitions filed by five people accused in the murder of realtor VG Shivaprakash alias Biklu Shiva, challenging the extension of time granted to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to file its final report and to extend their judicial custody.</p>.<p>KR Puram MLA Byrathi Basavaraj is also an accused in the case.</p>.<p>Shivaprakash was murdered on Meanee Avenue Road in Bharathinagar on July 15. The case was transferred to the CID on July 24.</p>.<p>The petitioners — K Kiran, B Vimalraj, Madan R, Pradeep and Samuel — questioned the extension of custody and the time granted to submit the final report under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act. They challenged the trial court’s October 17 order rejecting their plea for default bail.</p>.Bengaluru police make 19th arrest in Biklu Shiva murder case.<p>They argued that without the investigating officer’s report being placed before the court or included in the public prosecutor’s report, the special court lacked material to decide on extending the probe period.</p>.<p>The Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the court’s power to extend time rests on the reasons cited in the public prosecutor’s report, which must show progress of investigation and specific grounds for detaining the accused beyond 90 days.</p>.<p>The report stated that accused number 1, Jagadish alias Jagga, had fled the country and had to be brought back via a blue corner notice. It also said the investigation into the role of MLA Basavaraj, accused number five, could not be completed due to interim protection granted by the high court.</p>.<p>Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav noted that the Supreme Court has held that the public prosecutor may attach the investigating officer’s request.</p>.<p>He said that a plain reading of the proviso to Section 22 (2) (b) of the Act does not mandate attaching the investigating officer’s report. “The absence of annexing the report of the investigating officer would not denude the legal value to be attached to the report of the public prosecutor,” he said.</p>.<p>“This court, considering a petition under Section 482 (CrPC) with its limited jurisdiction, cannot sit in appeal over the conclusion of the designated judge and accordingly, there are no grounds made out for interference with the exercise of such judicial discretion conferred under the statute.”</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has rejected petitions filed by five people accused in the murder of realtor VG Shivaprakash alias Biklu Shiva, challenging the extension of time granted to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to file its final report and to extend their judicial custody.</p>.<p>KR Puram MLA Byrathi Basavaraj is also an accused in the case.</p>.<p>Shivaprakash was murdered on Meanee Avenue Road in Bharathinagar on July 15. The case was transferred to the CID on July 24.</p>.<p>The petitioners — K Kiran, B Vimalraj, Madan R, Pradeep and Samuel — questioned the extension of custody and the time granted to submit the final report under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act. They challenged the trial court’s October 17 order rejecting their plea for default bail.</p>.Bengaluru police make 19th arrest in Biklu Shiva murder case.<p>They argued that without the investigating officer’s report being placed before the court or included in the public prosecutor’s report, the special court lacked material to decide on extending the probe period.</p>.<p>The Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the court’s power to extend time rests on the reasons cited in the public prosecutor’s report, which must show progress of investigation and specific grounds for detaining the accused beyond 90 days.</p>.<p>The report stated that accused number 1, Jagadish alias Jagga, had fled the country and had to be brought back via a blue corner notice. It also said the investigation into the role of MLA Basavaraj, accused number five, could not be completed due to interim protection granted by the high court.</p>.<p>Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav noted that the Supreme Court has held that the public prosecutor may attach the investigating officer’s request.</p>.<p>He said that a plain reading of the proviso to Section 22 (2) (b) of the Act does not mandate attaching the investigating officer’s report. “The absence of annexing the report of the investigating officer would not denude the legal value to be attached to the report of the public prosecutor,” he said.</p>.<p>“This court, considering a petition under Section 482 (CrPC) with its limited jurisdiction, cannot sit in appeal over the conclusion of the designated judge and accordingly, there are no grounds made out for interference with the exercise of such judicial discretion conferred under the statute.”</p>