The Hindu : Karnataka / Bangalore News : Proceedings against Bharati Urs stayed

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Feb 16, 2006

Karnataka

Karnataka - Bangalore

Proceedings against Bharati Urs stayed

Staff Reporter

Bharati had levelled a series of complaints against the presiding officer of the Sessions Court in Bangalore

BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday stayed all further proceedings in the trial court against Bharati Raj Urs in the Chandralekha Urs murder case.

Justice Hulavadi G. Ramesh, in an interim order, directed the Government advocate to take notice and stayed the proceedings in the sessions court till the next date of hearing.

Bharati had levelled a series of complaints against the presiding officer of the Sessions Court in Bangalore where she is an accused along with others of murdering Chandrelakha Urs, daughter of former judge M.P. Chandrakant Raje Urs.

The city police, Bharati said, arrested her and two others on March 9, 2004 on the charges of murdering Chitralekha. Bharati alleged the police had foisted the case against her. According to the police, Bharati had taken a loan of Rs. 65 lakhs from Chitralekha and had not repaid it though she had issued post-dated cheques and promissory notes. Chitralekha had been demanding the return of the loan.

On January 19, 2004, Bharati had called Chitralekha to an office in High Grounds police station limits. Bharati, the police alleged, had hired T. Madhukumar and L.N. Chandrakanth to murder Chitralekha. The police had framed the charges against Bharati and others before the First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) in August 2005 and the case had been committed before a court of Sessions, Metropolitan area, Bangalore. Bharati had challenged it in the High Court, saying that she had not committed the murder and that the police had fabricated the charges against her.

In her petition, Bharti claimed that the presiding officer of the Sessions Court had behaved in a manner unbecoming of his office. She said she had every reason to believe that she would not get a fair and impartial trial and sought a transfer of the case from that court. She also sought an interim stay of the proceedings in the case.

Mr. Justice Ramesh posted the case to February 23 and granted the interim stay of the proceedings as prayed for by the petitioner.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail