Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Gauri Lankesh Murder Case: Judicial Scrutiny Highlights Discrepancies

In a significant development, the Karnataka High Court has granted bail to Mohan Nayak, the first individual to secure such relief in connection with the 2017 murder of activist-journalist Gauri Lankesh. Justice S Viashwajith Shetty, in the order, scrutinized the evidence against Nayak, noting a lack of direct involvement in the alleged conspiracy meeting and raising questions about the confession statements recorded in the case.

The court emphasized, "None of the 23 witnesses...said he was part of the meeting where the accused persons allegedly conspired to murder Lankesh." It further highlighted that most witnesses only mentioned Nayak taking a house on rent, casting doubt on his role as a conspirator.

Drawing attention to procedural lapses, Justice Shetty questioned the admissibility of confessions recorded before the sanction for invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act (COCA). The court held that Section 19 of COCA might not apply to the confessions, emphasizing non-compliance with recording procedures.

The judgment considered the nature of the alleged offenses, pointing out that even if COCA charges are proven, they don't warrant exclusively death or life imprisonment. With Nayak already in custody for over five years, the court cited undue delay in the trial and underscored its authority to grant relief despite COCA's conditions for bail.

"Even though COCA has certain conditions for enlarging the accused on bail, the same cannot fetter its judicial power to grant the relief when there is undue delay," the court asserted. Acknowledging that the trial may not conclude soon, and the delay isn't attributable to Nayak, the court granted bail, stating, "the prayer...needs to be answered affirmatively."

This decision comes after the High Court had twice denied regular bail to Nayak, who sought relief citing the sluggish trial progress, with only 90 out of 527 chargesheet witnesses examined so far. The ruling sheds light on the legal intricacies and procedural flaws in a case that has captured national attention.

Author: Anushka Taraniya

News Writer, MIT ADT University