Karnataka High Court View | Photo credit: file photo
Mahesh Shetty Thimarodi | Photo credit: file photo
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday allowed the probe to continue by setting aside its earlier interim order to stay the probe into the first information report (FIR), registered in July, into a complaint of alleged mass burial of bodies of sexually assaulted women in Dharmasthala following a “voluntary” statement by a person named Chinnaiah.
The stay was granted earlier on a petition filed by four activists – Girish Mattennavar, Mahesh Shetty Thimarody, T. Jayant and Vittala Gowda – who spearheaded the campaign to register a criminal case on the burial charges and to set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
However, the petitioner-activists knocked at the Supreme Court’s door against the FIR after the SIT recently issued them a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, suspecting them of committing a glaring offense in projecting a fake mass burial case through Chinnaiah instead of treating them as witnesses as was done earlier.
Justice Mohammad Nawaz, before whom the petition came up for further hearing, lifted the interim stay order on October 30 after considering the statement of objections filed by the SIT against the petition and sought lifting of the stay of the investigation. However, the court directed the SIT not to harass the petitioner in the guise of investigation.
‘Fear of the Truth’
“The petitioners and their associates are afraid of revealing the truth and are trying to stall the investigation and derail the entire process by filing one writ petition or the other,” SIT Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha said in a written statement of objections.
It was further held that in this serious matter, for which the State had already borne substantial costs, it was necessary to continue the investigation into the “false and mala fide allegations of the complainant (Chinnaiah), at the behest of the appellants and other associates”.
Pointing out that Chinnaiah (now an accused in the case) later revealed about the falsification of his complaint and said that his complaint and statement were in accordance with the instructions and active consent of the appellants, the SIT also told the court that Chinnaiah was staying at the house of one of the appellants and all the appellants were checking him, including “what to say in front of the police/SIT”.
The names of the petitioners were found in the fresh confessional statement of Chinnaiah, the SIT said, pointing out that Chinnaiah’s claims were found to be false during investigation.
‘credible allegations’
The question of arresting the petitioners would not have arisen had they cooperated in the investigation, the SIT said, arguing that “there are serious and credible allegations against the petitioners and their associates which are independently corroborated by detailed field investigations conducted by the SIT on the basis of circumstantial, credible witness evidence and digital forensic evidence.”
The notices issued to the petitioners, who request them to appear for questioning, were substantiated by “impeccable investigation and undisputed evidence from multiple sources”, the SIT said.
Published – 12 Nov 2025 20:53 IST
