From Our Special Correspondent
Daijiworld Media Network - Bangalore

Bangalore, Sep 7: While the Karnataka High Court reserved its orders on the petitions for anticipatory bail filed by former Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy and his wife Anita, MLA, in respect of two cases of graft in the Special Court, the Lokayukta Special Court which heard the private complaints on the alleged irregularities in land denotification of government land against the former Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa posted the hearing to September 13.

Karnataka High Court judge, Mr Justice L Narayana Swamy, who heard arguments on the petitions for anticipatory bail from the Kumaraswamy couple, reserved the orders till Thursday 10.30 am and granted interim bail to the couple until the orders were pronounced. The judge also exempted them from personal appearance today before the Special Lokayukta court, which had summoned them.

In the case pertaining to Yeddyurappa, Lokayukta Special Court Judge N K Sundhindra Rao adjourned hearing of the pleas filed by advocate Sirajin Basha granting time to the counsel for the accused to argue on the issue of right of representation by counsel for the complainant who submitted a vakalat (power of attorney) that he wished to be prosecutor for the complainant. Earlier, senior counsel C H Hanumantharaya filed a vakalat to the said effect.

Objecting to the vakalat, senior counsel for Yeddyurappa, C V Nagesh and Ravi B Naik, submitted that if the counsel for the complainant has filed a vakalat to appear as prosecutor for the case, he has ''to justify it and explain it.“ Nagesh said Pramod Chandra, who has been appointed as the Special Public Prosectuor for Lokayukta, which is probing the case, should also be present.

Ravi Naik submitted that since it was a ''technical matter,” Yeddyurappa, who was present today and also during the last hearing on August 29, be exempted from personal appearance as it was not only ''causing incovenience to the public because of security reasons but was also distrupting judicial proceedings because of the huge crowd that had gathered outside the court hall.”

The cases against Kumaraswamy pertain to a private complaint filed by advocate Vinod Kumar accusing the former Chief Minister of corruption in bulk land allotment to a housing society and granting permission to renew licence to a mining company during his tenure as Chief Minister during 2006-07.

Counsel for Kumaraswamy and his wife Anita submitted that the trial court judge had issued summons without holding an enquiry and the bulk allotment was in accordance with a High Court order. He also contended that Anita was a member of the Housing Society much before her husband became Chief Minister and that she had returned the site as it was not as per 'Vaastu’ principles.

In respect of the renewal of mining licence to Jantakal Mining Company, Kumaraswamy’s counsel contended that it had not been questioned in any court of law and there were no complaints. He also argued that Kumaraswamy had not misused his power. He pleaded for interim bail apprehending Kumaraswamy’s arrest as the ''offence is non-bailable.”

However, counsel for the petitioner Vinod Kumar submitted that there was no threat of arrest and the interim bail application was only to avoid appearance in the court. He alleged that Kumaraswamy indulged in favouritism and exerted pressure on the then Commissioner of Mines and Geology to renew mining licence to the company and that there was ''illegal gratification” vis-a-vis the bulk allotment.