Bangalore: Noting that it may require custodial interrogation of the accused, CBI on Friday strongly opposed anticipatory bail pleas moved by former chief minister BS Yeddyurappa and his family members as a designated court adjourned the hearing to May 29.
When the petitions filed by Yeddyurappa, his two sons BY Raghavendra MP, B Y Vijendra and son-in-law Sohan Kumar came up for hearing, the CBI filed its objections stating that it may require custodial interrogation of the accused.
Being a former chief minister, Yeddyurappa is a highly influential person and therefore custodial interrogation may be necessary, the CBI said.
The investigating agency said it also needs to question some officials who worked with Yeddyurappa.
The CBI also submitted that it would hamper its ongoing probe ordered by Supreme Court, if the accused were granted anticipatory bail.It also filed another application seeking orders that all accused be present during the next hearing.
Judge Venkat Sudarshan directed Yeddyurappa's counsel to file his objections to the CBI applications and adjourned the hearing to May 29.
Yeddyurappa and his family members have sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest by CBI in the wake of the agency filing an FIR against them and raiding their houses on May 16.
On the basis of Central Empowered Committee report, the Supreme Court on May 11 ordered CBI probe into the donations received by a trust owned by Yeddyurappa's family by two mining companies and denotification and sale of a piece of land which had been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for formation of a residential layout.
Raghavendra, Vijendra and Sohan Kumar have been accused of securing denotification of 1.2 acres in Rachenahalli when Yedduyurappa was chief minister for a meagre sum of Rs 40 lakh and later sold it to a mining firm for whopping Rs 20 crore.
The mining firms have also allegedly donated Rs 10 crore a trust owned by Yeddyurappa family members. Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Karnataka Restriction of Land Transfer Act have been filed against them.
Comments
0 comment