Daijiworld Media Network - Bengaluru

Bengaluru, Oct 31: The Karnataka high court has stayed the proceedings in the mass burial case till November 12, following a petition filed by the accused seeking to quash the case registered against them.

The hearing took place before a single-judge bench headed by Justice Mohammad Nawaz. The petition was filed by Girish Mattennavar, Mahesh Shetty Timarodi, Jayanth T, and Vitthal Gowda, members. Advocates Balan and Deepak Khosla appeared for the petitioners, with Khosla attending the hearing via video conference from Delhi.

Advocate Balan, during his arguments, told the court that despite the petitioners receiving notices nine times, they were repeatedly summoned for inquiry. “A total of 35 notices have been issued to the four petitioners, even though they are not accused in the case,” he argued, alleging that the notices were being served due to political and religious bias.

Balan further claimed that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) conducted nearly 150 hours of interrogation, often continuing from morning till midnight, under Section 215, and that most of the offences cited were non-cognizable.

At this point, the judge asked whether the petitioners were accused in the case. Balan clarified that none of them were, yet the SIT continued issuing notices. He added that the repeated notices were issued with malicious intent.

Senior public prosecutor Jagadish, however, countered that the petitioners had earlier met with senior officials, including the SP, and had even influenced the investigation. “They had supported the complainant and later provided false information, as admitted by Chinnayya,” he said, exposing what he termed the petitioners’ 'double standards'.

Advocate Khosla argued that the police failed to follow due process while registering the FIR under Section 211(a), whereas the prosecution maintained that magistrate approval had been obtained.

When the petitioners sought a stay on arrests, the prosecution opposed it, saying, “If they want protection, let them apply for bail — no relief should be granted.”

Balan countered, stating that serving notices via WhatsApp was invalid, as they should have been delivered in person. He also claimed that Chinnayya’s confession was coerced and not genuine.

After hearing both sides, the court directed that no further notices be issued to the petitioners until the next hearing and stayed the proceedings until November 12. The SPP strongly objected to the interim relief, but the bench maintained its order pending the next hearing.