Karnataka High Court lifts stay on Dharmasthala case, asks SIT to ensure activists are not harassed

The SIT, opposing the plea to quash the case, maintained that the inquiry had uncovered significant evidence warranting further investigation.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday vacated the interim order of stay on further proceedings in the FIR registered in the Dharmasthala case of mass burials. Justice Mohammad Nawaz however said that the interim order with directions not to harass the petitioners; Girish Mattannavar, Mahesh Shetty Thimarody, T Jayant and Vittala Gowda, will continue. The court modified the interim order after considering the statement of objections filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), probing the Dharmasthala mass burials case.

On October 30, the court stayed the FIR pertaining to the Dharmasthala mass burials case, in which later the informant himself was arrested and named as the sole accused for falsification and conspiracy. The court had passed the interim order since the petitioners raised a concern that the magistrate’s permission in the instant case, which was initially for a cognizable offence under BNS section 211A, was not proper as it is bereft of any reasoning.

During the hearing on Wednesday, Additional State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha, on behalf of the SIT said the magistrate’s permission was in accordance with law. He submitted that there are serious and credible allegations against the petitioners and their associates. Many of these allegations are independently corroborated through detailed field investigations carried out by the SIT based on circumstantial, evidence of credible witnesses, and digital forensic evidence, the ASPP said, adding that challenging the proceedings which was initiated by the petitioners themselves, is a travesty of justice, and hence should be dismissed.

The FIR (crime number 39/2025) was registered for offence under section 211 A of BNS based on the statement by the informant that he had buried several bodies in and around Dharmasthala. The SIT had carried out exhumation at 17 places in and around Dharmasthala and later found that these allegations were false.

In the detailed statement of objections filed by the ASPP on behalf of the SIT, it is stated that the Executive Magistrate exhibited due diligence, and the exhumations were done to the complete satisfaction of the complainant, and his support team, which comprised lawyers. The entire exhumation process is video recorded. The SIT team supporting the effort took extreme care in the face of inclement weather, adverse topography to ensure that the excavations happened without a hitch.

It is further stated that the investigation revealed that all the serious allegations made by the informant (now accused) were false. It said the informant had produced a human skull while filing the complaint and claimed that it was of a female and that he exhumed it from a burial site approximately five to six months earlier. However, the forensic medical examination conducted by the Department of Forensic Medicine at KMC Hospital, Mangaluru and Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru stated that the skull was of a male individual approximately 20-30 years of age. A further examination of the skull is still on, and the report is awaited, the statement said.

On confronting these and other materials, the informant revealed on his own free volition that he had lodged the complaint and had made the statements as per the instructions and their active connivance of the petitioners; Thimarody and others. It is further stated in the statement of objections that the investigating officer discovered the complicity of the informant and the petitioners and deemed that the complainant and others had committed offences punishable under sections 336, 230, 231, 229, 227, 228, 240, 236, 233, and 248 of the BNS. “Therefore, a request was duly sent to the Magistrate to invoke the relevant provisions and seek permission to continue the investigation,” the statement said.

The statement also said that notice under section 35(3) BNSS was rightly issued to the petitioners as the investigation found their role in the informant filing the complaint and FIR. It also said that the 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.