Madal Virupakshappa | photo Credit:
The Lokayukta police on Friday told the Karnataka High Court that BJP MLA Madal Virupakshappa was not cooperating with the probe and was giving evasive answers to questions during his interrogation in a bribery case lodged against him.
The MLA’s custodial interrogation was necessary to elicit information from him as he was giving evasive answers, and not even sharing a mobile phone number, due to protection from arrest by the court by granting interim anticipatory bail, argued the Lokayukta. Police’s
Also, the Lokayukta police have said that one of the MLA’s sons, Prashant Madal, who was caught red-handed while accepting ₹40 lakh in cash from the complainant-businessman on March 2, was also not cooperating during interrogation as apparently As such, his father has interim protection from arrest from the court.
These submissions were made before a division bench of Justice K. Natarajan during the hearing of the plea by Mr. Veeruppakshappa seeking anticipatory bail. The court had on March 7 granted him interim anticipatory bail till the final decision on his plea.
‘no proof’
However, the court asked the advocate representing the Lokayukta police as to what evidence has now been gathered against the MLA as the investigating officer in its preliminary report had said that the MLA was not arrested as there was “no evidence” against him at that time. was not. Regarding the arrest of his son.
This was due to the remark of the investigating officer about the absence of any evidence and the absence of any material Prima facie Justice Natarajan noted that the MLA, being the then Chairman of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited, had demanded payment of bribe from the complainant-businessman to be paid through his son, he was granted interim anticipatory bail.
To this, the counsel for the Lokayukta Police submitted that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and now some incriminating material had been collected against the MLA, and the statement of the Managing Director, KSDL, was recorded before the trial court, and Mr. Prashant and KSDL WhatsApp message in a sealed envelope between K.Md.
Meanwhile, the MLA’s counsel told the court that the house where Mr. Prashant is staying in Bengaluru belonged to a company and not the MLA, and the MLA’s two other sons were directors of the company. The advocate also argued that the presence of around Rs 6 crore in that house cannot be claimed as amounting to a bribe, given that the person in possession of the money is required by law to declare the source of the money to the Income Tax authorities. have rights.
The High Court had reserved the verdict after completing the arguments.