Ashwin dented Lokayukta image: Prosecutor

BENGALURU: The Lokayukta Special Court has reserved the order in the bail petitions filed by Ashwin Yerabati, the prime accused in the Lokayukta corruption case, till August 17.

Following the arguments by the prosecution and the defence counsel on Tuesday, Judge V.G. Bopaiah reserved the order and adjourned the hearing till August 17. Representing Ashwin, Sandeep Patil argued that the SIT has not arrested his client in connection with the case filed by Executive Engineer Krishnamurthy and thus the court should grant him the anticipatory bail.

“Krishnamurthy, in his complaint, has mentioned that he is not sure whether the person, who asked him to come to the Lokayukta office, was Ashwin. Even in his statement to the SIT, he has told that he met a person ‘who looks like Ashwin’. The complainant himself is not sure about Ashwin’s involvement in this case. So, he should be granted the anticipatory bail,” Patil argued.

Objecting to this, Special Public Prosecutor K Janardhan argued that Ashwin was an influential person, as he was the son of Lokayukta. “There are chances that accused would tamper evidence and influence witnesses if he is granted bail. Further, the SIT has collected evidence against him. He is reason for denting the image of the once most trusted Lokayukta institution. Keeping all this in the mind, the court should not grant him bail,” he submitted.

Further, Patil submitted that his client was not involved in the scam and there was no necessity for him to influence witness or tamper evidence. “Even if the allegations are true, an accused is eligible to get the bail based on the nature of the allegations.”

“And in connection with the case filed by Upper Bhadra Project Executive Engineer P.B. Channabasappa, there was absolutely no necessity for the SIT to arrest Ashwin. It looks like they (SIT officials) were determined to arrest Ashwin and it was their only priority. The complainant himself has stated that Ashwin told him ‘Don’t worry; I will try to help you if possible’. Ashwin might have told it generally and this case has no connection to the corruption case. Ashwin also did not introduce himself as Lokayukta’s son,” Patil argued.

For this the SPP argued that Ashwin himself asked Channabasappa to write his name and case number in a piece of paper and give to him, saying he would personally look into the case. “He also advised Channabasappa to do as what Bhaskar and Ashok said. And, Bhaskar and Ashok had demanded Rs 20 lakh to help the complainant. When the complainant asked who that person was, the duo told him that he was Lokayukta’s son. As the case is still under probe, bail should not be granted,” he argued.