Bengaluru: With the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the Lokayukta extortion case filing chargesheet against former Lokayukta Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, questions are being raised as to why he is not being arrested.
However, legal experts opine that it is the prerogative of the Investigating Officer (IO) to take a call on arresting any accused. Former Lokayukta Justice N. Santosh Hegde said, “Given the fact that the SIT has filed a chargesheet now, the accused needs to be interrogated and arrested if necessary. They can also ask for his police custody if they need more time to question him or the court may remand him to judicial custody.”
“Also, we need to look at the charges framed against him, whether they are cognisable or non-cognisable, and bailable or non-bailable. However, as the chargesheet is filed against him, he has to undergo trial like another person,” Justice Hegde added.
Meanwhile, sources in the SIT said that they would act as per the court order.
“We have done our job and filed chargesheet against him. His statement was also recorded in the earlier stages of the investigation. Based on findings of the investigation, we have filed the chargesheet. If the court directs us to arrest him, we will have to do that,” an official said.
Justice Rao, however, will have to undergo lot of embarrassment as he will have to stand in the accused box, whenever he appears before the court for trial.
“Whenever the court summons him, he has to appear before it. As he is also an accused, he will have to stand along with the other accused in the case in the accused box and make his statement. This is definitely embarrassing for a person who had held several top positions,” the official added.
The SIT, on Wednesday, submitted the chargesheet in connection with FIR no. 56/2015 before the Special Lokayukta court, naming Justice Rao as accused number seven and charged him under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and Sections 119 (public servant concealing design to commit offence), 120 (criminal conspiracy) r/w 36, 202 (intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform) and 217 (a public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture) among others of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
