Bengaluru: In a significant development, the Karnataka High Court has delivered a major ruling in the high-profile Dharmasthala Skull Case, allowing the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to resume its probe. The court has lifted the interim stay imposed earlier on the investigation of FIR 39/2025 filed at Dharmasthala Police Station, reaffirming that the SIT has been operating within the legal framework and under judicial supervision.
The case, which gained widespread attention as the “Dharmasthala Mass Burial Case,” involves allegations surrounding the discovery of human remains and claims of a cover-up by certain individuals associated with local religious and social organizations. The High Court’s latest order marks a critical turning point, ensuring that the truth behind the allegations is thoroughly investigated without obstruction.
A single-judge bench headed by Justice Mohammad Nawaz heard the matter and observed that the SIT had obtained all necessary permissions from the magistrate before initiating its investigation. The bench emphasized that the probe was not arbitrary and that all actions taken so far were backed by procedural compliance. Accordingly, the earlier stay order dated October 30 has now been vacated, allowing investigators to continue their work.
Court dismisses objections by petitioners
The petitioners — Girish Mattannavar, Mahesh Shetty Timarodi, T. Jayant, and Vitthalagouda — had approached the High Court seeking the cancellation of FIR 39/2025, alleging procedural violations and harassment. They argued that they were not named as accused in the FIR and that repeated notices had been issued to them without due process.
Advocate Balan, representing the petitioners, contended that his clients were interrogated for over 150 hours, sometimes from morning till midnight, under what he described as a politically motivated investigation. He also claimed that notices were served through WhatsApp and email rather than in person and alleged that the SIT’s summons under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was illegal.
The court, however, was not convinced by these arguments. It noted that the SIT’s actions had been duly sanctioned and that the accused had been given multiple opportunities to cooperate. Justice Nawaz clarified that while the interim order preventing harassment would remain in place, the investigation itself could not be halted without compelling reasons.
SIT defends its probe
Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadish, representing the SIT, firmly defended the investigation. He told the court that the SIT was operating under the supervision of the magistrate and within the boundaries of law. Jagadish pointed out that the petitioners themselves had earlier praised the SIT’s professionalism and transparency, and therefore, their current objections lacked merit.
He further explained that the complaint was originally filed by Chinnaiah, who later recorded his statement under Section 164, alleging the involvement of the petitioners. Following his deposition, the SIT conducted extensive searches across 20 different locations in Dharmasthala village, where several areas were excavated and examined. Based on fresh evidence and witness accounts, the SIT issued new notices to the petitioners.
The prosecution argued that instead of cooperating, the petitioners avoided appearing before the investigators, forcing the SIT to issue additional summons. Jagadish added that this non-cooperation was deliberately intended to delay the investigation.
