High Court rejects anticipatory bail plea of BJP MLA Byrathi Basavaraj in realtor murder case

Bengaluru:

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by BJP MLA Byrathi Basavaraj in connection with the murder of Bengaluru-based realtor V G Shivaprakash, also known as Bikla Shiva, bringing to an end the interim protection earlier granted to him.

Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav, presiding over a single-judge bench, rejected the plea after reserving orders on January 29. With the ruling, the interim anticipatory bail extended to the MLA by a vacation bench on December 26, 2025, stands cancelled.

Shivaprakash, 44, was hacked to death in public view in East Bengaluru on July 15, 2025, allegedly following a long-running real estate dispute. The case is being probed by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which has so far arrested 19 accused.

CID questions legality of interim bail

During arguments, the CID contended that the interim bail granted earlier was legally untenable, as the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) does not provide for interim anticipatory bail. Investigators also pointed out that Basavaraj had already exhausted his legal remedy after an earlier anticipatory bail plea was withdrawn by the High Court in December 2025, following interim protection granted in August.

The agency further alleged that the MLA had misled investigators during questioning soon after the murder, claiming he had no association with the prime accused. According to the CID, subsequent investigation revealed otherwise.

Defence claims cooperation

Basavaraj’s counsel argued that the MLA had cooperated fully with the investigation and was not named in any remand application or the first chargesheet filed in the case. The defence also contended that if the CID was aggrieved by the interim bail order of the vacation bench, it should have challenged it before the Supreme Court.

KCOCA invoked, later quashed

The CID had invoked provisions of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act (KCOCA) in August 2025, citing organised criminal activity behind the murder. However, the High Court quashed the application of the Act in December, holding that none of the accused were involved in multiple recent crimes attracting a minimum three-year sentence, a prerequisite under the law.

The CID has challenged the quashing of KCOCA provisions before the Supreme Court. While the apex court has not stayed the High Court’s order, it has clarified that the ruling should not be treated as a precedent in other organised crime cases.

Call records and geo-mapping cited

Opposing the anticipatory bail plea, Special Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesh placed before the court a detailed analysis of mobile Call Detail Records (CDRs) and tower location data. The prosecution argued that the data established sustained contact and physical proximity between the MLA and key accused before and during the alleged planning of the murder.

According to the CID, phone records and travel data showed that Basavaraj travelled to Prayagraj for the Kumbh Mela between February 10 and 12, 2025, on the same flight and tickets as prime accused Jagadish alias Jaga, Kiran K, and Ajith Kumar. Geo-mapping allegedly showed the group moving together on multiple occasions.

The prosecution said these findings contradicted Basavaraj’s claim during police interrogation that he had no personal association with the accused and that photographs circulating in public were incidental to political life.

Alleged threats and lapses in policing

The SPP also told the court that the victim’s mother, who had named the MLA as an accused on the day of the murder, was pressured to withdraw her statement. She later testified in court that her son had received repeated threats over property disputes involving 13 guntas of land in Kithaganur village.

The prosecution further alleged that local police failed to act on complaints filed by the victim in February and March 2025, in which he had warned of threats to his life and an attempted murder. The CID claimed this failure was due to the influence wielded by the MLA.

“This is a case where the investigation itself was frustrated,” the SPP argued, pressing for custodial interrogation. “The petitioner is not an ordinary individual. The state has a duty to correct earlier failures and protect the rule of law.”

With the High Court’s ruling, the CID is now free to proceed against the MLA in accordance with law as the probe into the high-profile murder continues.