In a move which could spell serious trouble for three former chief ministers — S.M. Krishna, N. Dharam Singh and H.D. Kumaraswamy — the state government has dispatched a revised report to the Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee on their role in illegal mining.
The report, which was revised following persistent demand by former chief minister B.S. Yeddyurappa, states that the state exchequer incurred losses of over `700 crores during 1999-2007. Interestingly, the state government had given a
clean chit to these former chief ministers in its first report, setting off angry reactions from Mr Yeddyurappa and his supporters.
Dealing at length about decisions taken by the former chief ministers, the report states “Mysore Minerals Ltd has suffered a revenue loss amounting to `714.54 crores between 1999 and 2007 during the tenure of S.M. Krishna, Dharam Singh and H.D. Kumaraswamy.”
The CEC had asked the state government for its opinion following charges of involvement levelled against the former chief ministers by social activist T.J. Abraham.
***
Bsy, kin get anticipatory bail
S.M. SHASHI PRASAD
BENGALURU, JUNE 21
Quoting English playwright and politician Joseph Addison — “Better to die ten thousand deaths than wound my honour”, as observed in a Supreme Court verdict, the Karnataka high court on Thursday granted anticipatory bail to former CM B.S. Yeddyurappa, his two sons, B.Y. Raghavendra and B.Y. Vijayendra, and son-in-law R. Sohan Kumar in cases registered against them by the CBI.
Justice Subhash B. Adi granted anticipatory bail to all the four accused, imposing stringent conditions that in the event of their arrest, they are to be released on bail after furnishing a personal bond of `2 lakhs each along with two sureties of same amount.
The court also directed the accused not to leave Bengaluru without prior permission from CBI till the investigation is over, not to tamper with evidence and if any of the conditions are violated, the CBI can seek cancellation of bail.
Stressing on the importance of personal liberty, the court observed: “If honour and dignity vanishes, what remains in life? Personal liberty is fundamental right and should be held as imperative...”