Karnataka High Court junks MLA Vinay Kulkarni plea objecting to pardoning granted to fellow accused

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petitions filed challenging the grant of pardon to Basavaraj Shivappa Muttagi, who was accused no. 1 in the Dharwad ZP member Yogishgoudar murder case, and allowing him to appear as an approver. The petitions were filed by Vinay Kulkarni, former minister and Congress MLA, Dinesh, Ashwath, Vikram Ballari, Sandeep Saudatti, and Chandrashekhar Indi, all of whom are accused in the case.

Yogesh Gowda, BJP Zilla Panchayat member, was murdered on June 15, 2016, in Dharwad. The trial is underway against 21 accused persons. On December 23, 2024, the special court had allowed the application filed by Muttagi and granted him pardon, permitting him to turn approver. The petitioners contended that the procedure under CrPC Section 206 had not been followed in granting the pardon, as the reasons recorded in writing for granting pardon were unavailable. The procedure mandates that once pardon is granted, it should be accepted by the person to whom pardon is granted. Only then can his evidence be recorded, they argued. It was further claimed that though the High Court had reserved liberty to file a second application seeking pardon, there was no changed circumstance supporting the same.

On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the CBI, argued that the Special Judge had granted pardon under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and not under Section 306 or Section 307 of the CrPC. When the accused himself has moved for pardon and tendered his evidence, it is deemed that he has accepted the pardon. No separate order accepting pardon is necessary to be passed, he submitted.

After perusing the material on record, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said the special court had recorded that accused no. 9 (Ashwath) had telephonically called upon his friends and other persons and had threatened that he would ensure that accused no. 1 (Muttagi) would not appear before the court. The court further stated that the cause of action continues, as the threat continues with accused number 1 and his family members, who are facing threats continuously.

“Moreover, on both the earlier occasions seeking pardon, there was no answer on merits. It was on technicalities that shrouded the orders that were passed — one by the concerned court rejecting the application for pardon and the other by this court finding fault with the recording of evidence under Section 164 of the CrPC. Therefore, for the first time, there has been proceedings in accordance with the law. Hence, there is no merit in the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners, that there is no changed circumstance in real-time, to file another application seeking pardon,” the court said.