The Karnataka High Court has directed the head of a Special Investigation Team of the Bengaluru police to examine reports prepared by his colleagues on a sexual assault allegation case against Ramesh Jarkiholi and a counter-complaint of extortion filed by the former BJP minister.
Earlier this year, in July, the SIT had placed reports of its investigation into sexual assault and extortion complaints before the high court while seeking permission to file them in a lower court.
The high court had earlier raised questions over the absence of supervision by the head of the SIT, who was on leave for a major part of the probe between May to July due to personal reasons.
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday asked the SIT to resubmit the investigation reports after examination by the head of the SIT, Soumendu Mukherjee, an officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police. The final reports of the investigations “should have been placed before the head of the SIT for appropriate order”, the high court stated. The case has been posted for November 29.
The Karnataka High Court has not granted a plea made by the state advocate general for permission for filing of final reports of the SIT probe before an appropriate court.
On July 27, the high court had restrained the SIT from filing final reports in investigations into allegations of rape made against the BJP MLA, and a parallel probe into extortion allegations made by the MLA.
The woman in the case has approached the high court against the setting up of the SIT and has sought quashing of the SIT investigations.
Ramesh Jarkiholi was forced to resign from the post of water resources minister on March 3 after a sex CD was broadcast on television channels on March 2. Initially, Jarkiholi claimed the CD was fake, but in a later statement to the SIT, he said it was not fake, and that he was blackmailed by a gang of extortionists with the recordings.
The SIT presented a report to the high court on July 19 on the progress of investigations into the allegations of sexual assault against the BJP MLA made by the woman and counter-allegations of extortion made by the former minister.
The high court raised questions on how the investigations could have been carried out by the SIT despite the head of the SIT being on leave for nearly three months during the probe.
The state advocate generaln Prabhuling Navadgin had argued that the probe was not vitiated by the absence of the SIT chief and that a team of officers had conducted the probe.