High Court grants interim stay till Nov 12 in Dharmasthala conspiracy case
Bengaluru, : The Karnataka High Court has granted an interim stay till November 12 on further proceedings in the Dharmasthala conspiracy case, offering temporary relief to the petitioners who had approached the court seeking to quash the case filed against them.
The matter came up before the single-judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz, with petitioners Girish Matteennavar, Mahesh Shetty Timarodi, Jayanth T., and Vitthal Gowda challenging the police action in a case they claim was initiated on political and religious motives.
Senior advocates Balan and Deepak Khosla appeared for the petitioners, with Khosla attending the hearing via video conference from Delhi.
Petitioners allege harassment through repeated notices
Arguing on behalf of the petitioners, Advocate Balan stated that despite the petitioners not being named as accused, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had issued repeated notices—nine times electronically and 35 notices in total—summoning them for inquiry.
“They have already appeared multiple times. Yet, the SIT continues to issue fresh notices almost every other day. It appears to be politically motivated and driven by organizational bias,” Balan argued, adding that the petitioners had been questioned for nearly 150 hours under Section 215, which pertains to procedural irregularities.
When the judge asked whether the petitioners were indeed accused in the case, Balan clarified that “none of them are accused, yet they are being repeatedly summoned under the guise of inquiry.”
Counsel questions legality of police procedure
Advocate Deepak Khosla contended that the police did not follow proper legal procedures while registering the case. He said the initial FIR was filed under Section 211(a), later expanded with several non-cognizable sections.
“The police failed to obtain proper sanction from the magistrate while registering the case,” Khosla argued. However, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Jagadish countered that necessary permission had been obtained.
The bench also questioned the need for issuing multiple notices to the same individuals, observing, “Why are so many notices being sent day after day to the same persons?”
State opposes relief plea
Opposing the plea for relief, SPP Jagadish said the petitioners themselves had earlier approached senior officers and ministers demanding an inquiry, and that they were now attempting to obstruct the very investigation they had once supported.
“These are the same persons who influenced the filing of the complaint and even gave shelter to the complainant. There are statements that they provided misleading information to the investigators,” the SPP stated.
He urged the court not to grant any relief, saying, “If they fear arrest, they can seek bail, but no blanket protection should be given.”
Advocate Balan, however, maintained that WhatsApp notices are not legally valid, arguing that the petitioners were not properly served. He further stated that the confession attributed to Chinnayya, one of the accused, was not genuine.
Interim stay till November 12
After hearing the arguments, Justice Mohammad Nawaz observed that since the petitioners had not been formally named as accused, further notices should not be issued until the next hearing.
Accordingly, the court granted an interim stay till November 12, directing the SIT not to issue further notices or take coercive steps until that date.
The SPP strongly objected to the interim protection, insisting that the investigation should continue unhindered. However, the bench maintained that no additional notices be served till the next hearing.
