The Karnataka High Court has asked the head of a Bengaluru Police Special Investigation Team to review reports prepared by his colleagues on a sexual assault case against Ramesh Jarkiholi and a counter-complaint against Ramesh Jarkiholi. extortion filed by the former BJP minister.
Earlier this year, in July, the SIT filed reports on its investigation of sexual assault and extortion complaints in the High Court while seeking leave to bring them to a lower court.
The high court had previously raised questions about the lack of supervision of the head of SIT, who was on leave for much of the investigation between May and July for personal reasons.
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday asked the SIT to resubmit the investigation reports after review by SIT chief Soumendu Mukherjee, an officer with the rank of Inspector General of Police. The final reports of the investigations “should have been handed over to the head of SIT for proper order,” the High Court said. The case was published for November 29.
The Karnataka High Court disallowed the plea of the State Advocate General for leave to file the final reports of the SIT investigation before a competent court.
On July 27, the High Court barred the SIT from filing final reports in investigations into rape allegations against the BJP MP, and a parallel investigation into the extortion allegations made by the MP. .
The woman in the case took the SIT’s establishment to the High Court and asked for the SIT’s investigations to be quashed.
Ramesh Jarkiholi was forced to resign from his post as Minister of Water Resources on March 3 after a sex CD aired on TV channels on March 2. Initially, Jarkiholi claimed the CD was a fake, but in a later statement to SIT he said it was not fake, and that he was blackmailed by a gang of extortionists with the recordings. .
The SIT reported to the High Court on July 19 on the status of investigations into the woman’s allegations of sexual assault against the BJP deputy and the counter-extortion allegations made by the woman. former minister.
The High Court raised questions about how the investigations could have been carried out by the SIT despite the fact that the head of the SIT was on leave for almost three months during the investigation.
State attorney general Prabhuling Navadgin had argued that the investigation was not marred by the absence of the head of SIT and that a team of officers had conducted the investigation.