E-Paper
HC lifts stay on Dharmasthala SIT probe; extends interim relief
Karnataka High Court allows SIT to resume investigation into Dharmasthala Mass Burial Case, while protecting accused from harassment during the probe.
The Karnataka high court on Wednesday vacated its interim stay order on the special investigation into the Dharmasthala Mass Burial Case, issued on October 30, allowing the special Investigation Team (SIT) to resume its probe into FIR No. 39/2025, registered at the Dharmasthala Police Station.
Delivering the order, a bench headed by Justice Mohammad Nawaz said the investigation could not remain halted indefinitely and noted that the SIT had proceeded with due permission from the magistrate. The court, however, extended interim protection, directing the SIT “not to harass the accused during the course of investigation.”
With this decision, activists Girish Mattannavar, Mahesh Shetty Timarodi, T Jayant, and Vitthala Gowda will now face further interrogation by the SIT.
The order was passed amid an ongoing hearing on a petition by the group seeking the quashing of the FIR filed by Dharmasthala police based on the anonymous statement by CN Chinnaiah in July, wherein he alleged that he was coerced by the Dharmasthala temple administration into illegally several bodies of unidentified women and children over a period of two decades, some allegedly bearing signs of sexual assault.
Speaking to reporters after the hearing, special public prosecutor BN Jagadish, who served as the SIT’s counsel, welcomed the order. “The SIT acted within the law’s ambit and obtained all necessary approval before conducting the investigation,” he said.
During the hearing, Jagadish alleged that that the petitioners obtained the stay by allegedly providing false information that approval was not obtained.
“The petitioner himself had earlier appreciated the impartiality of the SIT’s probe. Hence, there is no justification to stop the investigation midway,” he told reporters.
The petitioners had moved the high court seeking to quash the FIR, calling it politically and religiously motivated.
Their counsel, senior advocate S Balan, argued that his clients had been repeatedly targeted despite not being named in the FIR.
“Notices have been issued to my clients nine times. They have been interrogated for more than 150 hours,” Balan told the court. “These summons were not personally served but sent through WhatsApp and email. The SIT has invoked Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which is wholly illegal in this context. My clients were neither accused nor witnesses, yet they were subjected to continuous questioning from morning till midnight.”
Balan also alleged that the notices were issued out of “political, religious, and organizational enmity.”
