<p>Lokayukta police arrested BJP MLA Virupakshappa Madal in a corruption case on Monday, shortly after the High Court of Karnataka rejected his application for anticipatory bail. </p>.<p>The court also cancelled the interim anticipatory bail given to the Channagiri MLA on March 7. It noted that his custodial interrogation was necessary at this stage. </p>.<p>Lokayukta police sources said that the MLA was arrested near the Chokkanahalli toll plaza in Kyathasandra, Tumakuru, around 7 pm. He and his aides were on their way to Bengaluru when Lokayukta police officials intercepted their SUV and took him into custody, sources said. </p>.<p>Lokayukta police started tracking Virupakshappa around 4 pm while he was in Chitradurga. They waited in five SUVs near the toll plaza, sources added. </p>.<p>A Subramanyeswara Rao, Inspector General of Police, Lokayukta, confirmed to <em>DH </em>that the MLA was arrested. </p>.<p>Police have taken Virupakshappa to Bengaluru where they will subject him to a medical test and complete the arrest formalities. The MLA is unlikely to be produced before a magistrate tonight. </p>.<p>Virupakshappa was booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act after Lokayukta police arrested his son and BWSSB chief accounts officer M V Prashanth Kumar on March 2 for taking a Rs 40-lakh bribe from a government contractor. </p>.<p>Lokayukta police said that the bribe was taken for a contract with Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd (KSDL), a state government entity that manufactures the popular Mysore sandal soap and other products. They said Kumar took the bribe on behalf of his father, the KSDL chairman. The MLA had quit the post after his son's arrest. </p>.<p>Lokayukta officials seized Rs 8.02 crore from Kumar's office and residence in Bengaluru and the MLA's residence in the Davangere district. </p>.<p>During the bail hearing, the court noted that though it had given Virupakshappa interim anticipatory bail until the disposal of the case, there was now sufficient evidence to show his involvement in the commission of the offence based on the police case diary and the statement of Mohan, the managing director of KSDL. </p>.<p>"Therefore, the custody of the petitioner is imminent for the Lokayukta police to interrogate him in the matter. Therefore, at this stage, this court feels that the interim anticipatory bail requires to be cancelled as the petitioner-accused No.1 (Virupakshappa) has not properly co-operated with the investigation officer,” Justice K Natarajan stated in the order. </p>.<p>Lokayukta police stated that after getting interim anticipatory bail, Virupakshappa didn't cooperate with the investigation and gave evasive answers. </p>.<p>According to Lokayukta police, the KSDL managing director gave a statement under CrPC sections 161 and 164. This statement revealed that Kumar actively participated in the tender process at his father's instance and that the tender was finalised at Virupakshappa's initiative. The court also cited the managing director's statement that Virupakshappa gave frequent instructions through his son in tender floating activities. </p>.<p>Citing the apex court judgement in the P Chidambaram case, the bench said that the police were required to investigate the matter for custodial interrogation on economic offences. </p>.<p>"Though the alleged offence is not directly on the economic offence against the state, the KSDL, a public limited company (and), belongs to the state government. It has floated the tender process for purchasing the chemicals or raw materials for production of Mysore sandal soaps. If the company pays more than crores of rupees as commission or bribe, one cannot expect good quality of raw materials will be supplied by the said company and the very tender process followed by the tender accepting committee and accepting the lowest price and good quality of raw materials will be frustrated,” Justice Natarajan said. </p>.<p>The bench added, "The public auction process through online would remain as an empty formality and eye wash to the public as they are following the KTPP Act and they are giving the tender to a person who is bribing the committee or the head of the committee who is holding the higher position in the tender procuring process."</p>
<p>Lokayukta police arrested BJP MLA Virupakshappa Madal in a corruption case on Monday, shortly after the High Court of Karnataka rejected his application for anticipatory bail. </p>.<p>The court also cancelled the interim anticipatory bail given to the Channagiri MLA on March 7. It noted that his custodial interrogation was necessary at this stage. </p>.<p>Lokayukta police sources said that the MLA was arrested near the Chokkanahalli toll plaza in Kyathasandra, Tumakuru, around 7 pm. He and his aides were on their way to Bengaluru when Lokayukta police officials intercepted their SUV and took him into custody, sources said. </p>.<p>Lokayukta police started tracking Virupakshappa around 4 pm while he was in Chitradurga. They waited in five SUVs near the toll plaza, sources added. </p>.<p>A Subramanyeswara Rao, Inspector General of Police, Lokayukta, confirmed to <em>DH </em>that the MLA was arrested. </p>.<p>Police have taken Virupakshappa to Bengaluru where they will subject him to a medical test and complete the arrest formalities. The MLA is unlikely to be produced before a magistrate tonight. </p>.<p>Virupakshappa was booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act after Lokayukta police arrested his son and BWSSB chief accounts officer M V Prashanth Kumar on March 2 for taking a Rs 40-lakh bribe from a government contractor. </p>.<p>Lokayukta police said that the bribe was taken for a contract with Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd (KSDL), a state government entity that manufactures the popular Mysore sandal soap and other products. They said Kumar took the bribe on behalf of his father, the KSDL chairman. The MLA had quit the post after his son's arrest. </p>.<p>Lokayukta officials seized Rs 8.02 crore from Kumar's office and residence in Bengaluru and the MLA's residence in the Davangere district. </p>.<p>During the bail hearing, the court noted that though it had given Virupakshappa interim anticipatory bail until the disposal of the case, there was now sufficient evidence to show his involvement in the commission of the offence based on the police case diary and the statement of Mohan, the managing director of KSDL. </p>.<p>"Therefore, the custody of the petitioner is imminent for the Lokayukta police to interrogate him in the matter. Therefore, at this stage, this court feels that the interim anticipatory bail requires to be cancelled as the petitioner-accused No.1 (Virupakshappa) has not properly co-operated with the investigation officer,” Justice K Natarajan stated in the order. </p>.<p>Lokayukta police stated that after getting interim anticipatory bail, Virupakshappa didn't cooperate with the investigation and gave evasive answers. </p>.<p>According to Lokayukta police, the KSDL managing director gave a statement under CrPC sections 161 and 164. This statement revealed that Kumar actively participated in the tender process at his father's instance and that the tender was finalised at Virupakshappa's initiative. The court also cited the managing director's statement that Virupakshappa gave frequent instructions through his son in tender floating activities. </p>.<p>Citing the apex court judgement in the P Chidambaram case, the bench said that the police were required to investigate the matter for custodial interrogation on economic offences. </p>.<p>"Though the alleged offence is not directly on the economic offence against the state, the KSDL, a public limited company (and), belongs to the state government. It has floated the tender process for purchasing the chemicals or raw materials for production of Mysore sandal soaps. If the company pays more than crores of rupees as commission or bribe, one cannot expect good quality of raw materials will be supplied by the said company and the very tender process followed by the tender accepting committee and accepting the lowest price and good quality of raw materials will be frustrated,” Justice Natarajan said. </p>.<p>The bench added, "The public auction process through online would remain as an empty formality and eye wash to the public as they are following the KTPP Act and they are giving the tender to a person who is bribing the committee or the head of the committee who is holding the higher position in the tender procuring process."</p>