Introduction:

The Karnataka High Court, while hearing a petition on December 19, 2024, sought the transfer of an ongoing investigation into the over Rs 100 crore Bhovi Development Corporation scam to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petition was filed by two accused, Yashaswini M and another, who claimed that the investigation by the state police was not being conducted properly. The matter came before Justice M Nagaprasanna, who took a critical view of the state’s handling of the case, especially about the main accused in the scam. The bench observed that several key individuals in the case had not been summoned for investigation for over 20 months, despite the scale of the financial fraud being uncovered. This led the court to remark that the state government appeared to be shielding the accused, which prompted the request for a transfer of investigation to a more independent agency.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners argued that the investigation into the Bhovi Development Corporation scam had been sluggish, with the primary accused – persons involved in the highest level of the scam – being deliberately kept out of the investigative process. They contended that, despite the considerable evidence that had surfaced linking the accused to fraudulent activities, the authorities had failed to summon the main culprits for investigation. The petitioners also pointed out that these accused had been at large for more than 20 months and had yet to be taken into custody or questioned by the police, despite not securing bail from any competent court. The petitioners asserted that the case’s scope and the complexity of the scam warranted a more thorough and unbiased investigation, which they felt could only be ensured by transferring the case to the CBI.

On the other hand, the state prosecutor defended the investigation by the state police, pointing out that several documents had recently surfaced, further illuminating the magnitude of the scam. The state maintained that the police had been conducting a comprehensive investigation, though the accused’s non-summoning and non-arrest were not addressed in their defence. The prosecutor, however, could not explain why the principal accused had not been questioned or arrested, despite the case being registered in March 2023.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice M Nagaprasanna, after considering the arguments from both sides, noted serious discrepancies in the handling of the investigation by the state authorities. The judge pointed out that the investigation had been ongoing for almost two years, yet the main accused in the case, identified as persons A1, A2, A3, and A5, had not been summoned or questioned during this period. Furthermore, the court observed that these accused individuals had not secured bail from any court in the last 20 months, yet no efforts had been made to either investigate or arrest them. The court expressed concern that the state appeared to be shielding the primary culprits, particularly in a case involving a financial scam of such magnitude.

Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that the delay in summoning the key accused and the lack of tangible action from the state authorities were indicative of a lack of urgency and seriousness in the investigation. The judge remarked that this “snail’s pace” approach was inappropriate for a scam of such considerable proportions, and thus, the matter warranted intervention by a more independent investigative body, like the CBI. The court directed the state government to produce all relevant records regarding the accused and their participation in the investigation by the next hearing date. The records should also include details of any bail secured by these accused, failing which the court indicated it would take further action.

The court also made an oral remark about the inaction surrounding the case of a Deputy Police Commissioner who was allegedly involved in the abetment of suicide, underscoring the state’s inefficiency in dealing with both scams and cases of police misconduct. The court’s remarks reflected growing frustration with the state’s lack of action in high-profile cases and its perceived tendency to shield key individuals involved in scams or serious crimes.

The matter was adjourned for further hearing on January 6, 2025. The court’s order called into question the state’s commitment to thoroughly investigating the scam and pursuing justice for the victims involved.