Karnataka HC restores bail to accused police officer in BJP worker Yogesh Gowda murder case

BJP worker Yogesh Gowda was murdered at his gym in Dharwad on June 15, 2016, by persons alleged to be hired assailants. Congress Dharwad MLA Vijay Kulkarni is one of the accused in this case. Tingarikar, one of the investigating officers in the case, was accused of trying to cover up the murder and protect the accused. He had obtained bail from a sessions court in 2021 on condition that he would not make any inducements or threats to any person to dissuade them from giving facts to the court or investigators, and he was also barred from leaving the country without court permission before the end of the trial.

In June this year, a witness complained to the police that when he attended the inquiry against Tingarikar, he tried to get him to sign certain documents and influence his deposition. Based on this, the trial court cancelled Tingarikar’s bail on September 15. He then approached the high court.

Tingarikar claimed that the witness’s letter to the police was false, arguing that as he had already finished giving evidence, the question of influencing him was not possible. He further argued that there had been no inquiry or evidence to corroborate the allegation. It was also asserted that if bail could be cancelled solely on letters written by a witness, bail in most cases could be cancelled by a complainant witness acting out of vengeance.

Citing the prior cases dealing with such matters, the bench stated, “The prosecution needs to establish the fact that the accused has tried to influence or threaten a witness, on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt… However, in the instant case, the only allegation made against the petitioner is that he tried to influence the evidence of (the witness), whose evidence is already over in the criminal case. The same is not corroborated by any independent investigation by the Police or by other documents… Mere apprehension is not sufficient to cancel the bail.”

Having made these observations, the court restored the bail to the petitioner, clarifying that he is still bound by the same conditions.