Archive · 20 Aug 2026
Court rejects plea to make second accused approver
A court in Bengaluru considered whether H L Shivakumar could help prosecutors as an approver.
An approver is an accused person who provides evidence in exchange for possible pardon.
Shivakumar said he knew important details about the case.
The court said he was not present during the alleged offence.
It also said his information came from a phone conversation with the complainant.
Because that information would be hearsay, the court found it was not direct evidence.
The court also found no evidence that Shivakumar joined the main alleged conspiracy.
Therefore, the court rejected his request.
A special court rejected H L Shivakumar’s request to become an approver in the case.
The court said pardon under Section 306 of the CrPC is an exceptional discretionary power.
Shivakumar was allegedly involved in threatening the complainant after the alleged incident, but was not a direct witness.
The court held that his proposed testimony would be hearsay and would not materially advance the prosecution’s case.
The CID has filed a chargesheet, and the case is currently at the trial stage.
- Who
- H L Shivakumar, the second accused, sought to become an approver; Suraj Revanna is the first accused in the case.
- What
- A special court rejected Shivakumar’s petition for pardon and permission to testify as an approver.
- When
- The alleged incident was reported to have occurred on June 16, 2024; the court’s ruling came while the case was at the trial stage.
- Where
- The alleged assault was reported at Suraj Revanna’s residence in Bengaluru; the petition was heard by a special court for elected representatives.
- Why
- Shivakumar sought to disclose information about the case, but the court found his proposed evidence was hearsay and not sufficiently useful to the prosecution.
Shivakumar’s position
Suraj Revanna’s opposition
Value of proposed testimony
Shivakumar’s position
Shivakumar claimed he knew the complete details of the case and was willing to disclose them before the court.
Suraj Revanna’s opposition
Suraj Revanna’s counsel argued that Shivakumar had offered no new or material information.
Purpose of the petition
Shivakumar’s position
Shivakumar sought pardon and permission to become an approver in the proceedings.
Suraj Revanna’s opposition
Suraj Revanna’s counsel alleged that the petition was intended to divert the proceedings and was filed with mala fide motives.
Connection to the alleged offence
Shivakumar’s position
Shivakumar proposed to testify about information the complainant communicated to him by telephone.
Suraj Revanna’s opposition
The court found that Shivakumar was not a direct witness, that the proposed information was hearsay, and that he had not been shown to participate in the principal conspiracy.
- Court
- Special court for elected representatives
- Judge
- Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Senior Civil Judge Sandeep Patil
- Applicant
- H L Shivakumar, the second accused
- First accused
- Legislative Council member Suraj Revanna
- Relevant provision
- Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- Investigation agency
- Criminal Investigation Department
- Case status
- The CID has filed a chargesheet and the matter is at the trial stage