A view of the High Court of Karnataka
| Photo Credit: file photo
Mahesh Shetty Thimarodi
| Photo Credit:
file photo
The High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday allowed continuation of investigation by vacating its earlier interim order of staying the probe based on the first information report (FIR), registered in July, on a complaint of alleged mass burial of bodies of sexually assaulted women in Dharmasthala based on a “voluntary” statement given by a person by name Chinnaiah.
The stay was granted earlier on a petition filed by four activists — Girish Mattennavar, Mahesh Shetty Thimarody, T. Jayant, and Vittala Gowda — who were at the forefront of a campaign for registration of criminal case on the allegation of burials, and for constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
However, the petitioner-activists had knocked the doors of the High Court against the FIR after the SIT recently issued notices to them under Section 35 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, suspecting them to have indulged in cognisable offence in projecting a false case of mass burial through Chinnaiah, instead of treating them as witnesses as done earlier.
Justice Mohammad Nawaz, before whom the petition came up for further hearing, vacated the October 30 interim order of staying the probe after considering the statement of objections filed by the SIT opposing the petition and seeking lifting of stay against investigation. However, the court directed the SIT not to harass the petitioners in the guise of the probe.
‘Fear of truth’
“Petitioners and their associates are fearful of the truth being revealed and are attempting to scuttle the investigation and derail the entire process by filing one or the other writ petition,” it was contended by SIT’s Special Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha in the written statement of objections.
It was further stated that continuation of investigation was essential in this serious matter, for which significant expenses had already been borne by the State, into “the false and mala fide allegations of the complainant [Chinnaiah], on the instructions of the petitioners and other associates.”
Pointing out that Chinnaiah (now an accused in the case) had later disclosed about the falsification of his complaint and stated that his complaint and statements were as per the instructions and active connivance of the petitioners, the SIT also told the court that Chinnaiah was staying in the house of one of the petitioners and all the petitioners were controlling him, including “what to say and what not to say before the police/SIT.”
Names of the petitioners were found in the fresh confession statement of Chinnaiah, the SIT said while pointing that claims of Chinnaiah were found to be bogus through the investigation.
‘Credible allegations’
The question of arresting the petitioners would not arise if they cooperated with the probe, the SIT said, while contending that that “there are serious and credible allegations against the petitioners and their associates that are independently corroborated through detailed field investigations carried out by the SIT based on circumstantial, evidence of credible witnesses, and digital forensic evidence.”
Notices issued to the petitioners asking them appear for questioning were backed by “immaculate investigation, and by incontrovertible evidence from multiple sources”, the SIT stated.
Published – November 12, 2025 08:53 pm IST
