Nearly eight months after he was named among the accused in a real estate dispute linked murder in Bengaluru, the BJP MLA from the K R Pura constituency in the city, Byrathi Basavaraj, 64, was arrested on Thursday at the Bengaluru International Airport by the CID unit of the Karnataka police, on his arrival from Ahmedabad.
The arrest followed the Supreme Court’s rejection on Thursday of an anticipatory bail plea filed by the MLA – close on the heels of a Karnataka HC rejection on February 10.
Police sources said the BJP MLA who was named as accused number five in the July 15, 2025 murder case of a real estate operative V G Shivaprakash alias Bikla Shiva, 44, would be produced in a special court for elected representatives on Friday.
On Thursday morning the Supreme Court had “dismissed as withdrawn” an anticipatory bail plea moved by Byrathi Basavaraj on Wednesday. The SC plea was withdrawn by the MLA after the CID unit of the Karnataka police filed a caveat to be heard before considering the anticipatory bail plea.
“Learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks and is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner to apply for regular bail after his surrender. We request that the Court concerned decide the application for regular bail expeditiously. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits,” a SC bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kanth and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled on Thursday.
The Karnataka police CID unit had issued a look out notice for Byrathi Basavaraj on February 10 soon after the Karnataka HC rejected the MLA’s petition. The MLA who is accused of being an integral part of the plot to murder a realtor V G Shivaprakash alias Bikla Shiva, 44 has dodged arrest over the last eight months through interim protections granted by the HC.
On February 10, the Karnataka high court however rejected the anticipatory bail plea filed by Byrathi Basavaraj and cancelled an interim protection granted by a vacation bench of the Karnataka HC on December 26, 2025.
“The interrogation of powerful accused, such as the petitioner, who is highly influential armed with an order of anticipatory bail may not be as effective. The decision as to the manner of investigation must be left with the Investigation Authority and the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same,” the HC said in its February 10 order.
Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav of the Karnataka HC had observed in his judgment this week that the MLA was granted interim bail “at a point of time where the Court did not have the benefit of the stand of respondents (the state through the CID police)”.
“As interim anticipatory bail was granted on the very first day in the absence of representation by the Special Public Prosecutor who was handling the matter and in the presence of learned High Court Government Pleader, who had no instructions on the stated day, but appeared and put in a symbolic presence,” the HC said.
The HC referred to evidence cited by the Special Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesh, on behalf of the CID unit of the Karnataka police, including analysis of mobile phone location, call detail records and allegations of threats to witnesses like the mother of the victim to reject the plea of the MLA. The HC observed that “the grant of anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief”.
“The perusal of the investigation material placed before the Court prima facie does reveal that there are substantial records which may be required to be confronted to the accused as a part of the investigation,” the HC said.
“Such material consists of CDRs,reports of enquiry on the complaint of the deceased and photographs of the petitioner along with the accused. No doubt, such evidence is a matter to be subjected to further scrutiny, however, the request of the respondent State for custodial interrogation cannot be brushed aside,” the HC noted on February 10
During the arguments of the case in the Karnataka HC the CID said that the BJP MLA had lied to the Bengaluru police during interrogation in July 2025, soon after the murder, that he did not know key accused persons in the murder case at all and that the investigations including call details, mobile location data and pictures on social media had revealed a close association including a joint trip to Prayagraj for the Kumbh Mela in February 2025.
A total of 19 of 20 accused persons have been arrested so far over the July 15, 2025 murder of the real estate operator Bikla Shiva who also had a criminal record of interfering in property disputes by creating fake claims.
The CID had invoked the stringent Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2002 (KCOCA) in the murder case on August 12, 2025 but the Karnataka HC quashed the invoking of KCOCA on December 16, 2025 by saying no accused in the case was also involved in other recent crimes with punishment of a jail terms of three years.
The CID has challenged the order in the Supreme Court saying the Karnataka HC had erred in its interpretation of the KCOCA. The SC has not stayed the judgment but has indicated that the order will not be a precedent that can be cited in other organized crime cases.
During the recent arguments on the anticipatory bail plea by Byrathi Basavaraj in the HC the CID produced an analysis of mobile Call Detail Records for the MLA to prove his association with members of the gang that is accused of executing the July 15, 2025 Bikla Shiva murder.
The CDR analysis for the BJP MLA was cited to show his association with key members of the gang – including accused number one Jagadish alias Jaga, a former Bengaluru rowdy sheeter, accused number 2, Kiran K, and accused number 20, Ajith Kumar, who are among the 19 arrested accused in the murder case.
The call detail records and geo mapping evidence was produced in the HC “to demonstrate that the petitioner has tried to mislead the investigation” and that he “tried to distance himself from the accused but the records reveal something else” the SPP told the HC. ”
The SPP also claimed that the mother of the victim who had named the MLA as an accused at the outset of the criminal probe was threatened into retracting her statement but had testified in court about her son receiving threats from the MLA and associates over interference in property deals.
The SPP also argued that the local police were hand in glove with the BJP MLA and this had led to the failure of the police to register an FIR following two complaints filed by the victim in February and March of 2025 of threats to his life and even an attempt to murder.
The CID had issued a lookout notice for Basavaraj on February 10, soon after the Karnataka High Court rejected his plea. (File Photo) 
Share
