Fresh Sowjanya probe: Activists fear 3 suspects could leave country before SIT investigation

Bengaluru

Sowjanya Activists and persons pursuing the case have raised concerns that three persons whose names have figured repeatedly in the investigation into the 2012 rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl at Dharmasthala — Mallik Jain, Dhiraj/Deeraj Jain and Uday Jain — could potentially leave the country or otherwise evade the reach of law following the Supreme Court’s (SC) September 21, 2026 direction for a fresh investigation.

The concern comes against the backdrop of the SC ordering a de novo investigation into the case and directing the Karnataka government to constitute a new Special Investigation Team (SIT), comprising investigators who were not part of the earlier investigations by the Belthangady Police, CID or CBI.

However, the SC has not held that any of the three committed the crime. On the contrary, the Court specifically directed that nothing in its judgment should be construed as expressing even a prima facie opinion on the role of Mallik Jain, Dhiraj Jain or Uday Jain.

Why the three names figure in the case

The judgment recorded that the victim’s father and other persons had, from the early stages of the case, suspected the involvement of three influential persons from the locality and maintained that Santhosh Rao, who was prosecuted for the crime, had been falsely implicated.

The SC recorded that the CBI subsequently summoned Dhiraj Jain, Mallik Jain and Uday Kumar Jain during its investigation and subjected them to polygraph and brain-mapping tests. The CBI nevertheless filed its charge sheet maintaining that Santhosh Rao was responsible for the crime and gave the three suspected persons a clean chit. The matter did not end there.

During the trial, the Sessions Court issued summons to the three persons after an application was filed seeking their addition as accused. They challenged that order before the Karnataka High Court. Subsequently, an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed seeking to implead Mallik Jain, Dhiraj Jain and Uday Jain as additional accused. 

That application was dismissed by the Sessions Court on October 4, 2021, with the court holding that there was no material or evidence of the kind required under Section 319 CrPC against them. The SC recorded that this order was not appealed against.

SC finds serious deficiencies in earlier investigation

The fresh concern of activists arises principally because the SC has now found serious deficiencies in the investigation and ordered a completely new investigation.

The Court noted that Santhosh Rao was acquitted after the prosecution failed toconnect him with the crime. It also referred to missing or inadequately examined evidence, including the failure to secure CCTV footage, missing belongings of the victim, problems concerning preservation of the vaginal swab and the failure to properly investigate leads concerning other suspected persons.

Importantly, the SC noted that material witnesses are still available and that hair belonging to another person was found on the victim’s clothing. The Court recorded the evidence of the forensic expert that, if suspected persons are identified, their DNA could still be compared with that material.

The judgment also records that on April 29, 2026, the SC had directed the Karnataka government to provide protection to eight potential witnesses. The State subsequently located those witnesses within three weeks. The SC said this raised questions about why the earlier investigating agencies had been unable to examine such leads when they were available.

A significant observation on suspects escaping the law

The judgment quotes the SC’ decision in Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan, which recognised that a constitutional court may order a fresh investigation in exceptional circumstances where an investigation has been conducted in a manner that could help someone “escape the clutches of the law.”

That observation is an important context for the activist Girish Mattannavar’s present concern.  It does not mean that the SC has found that Mallik Jain, Dhiraj Jain or Uday Jain are attempting to escape India.  Rather, the Court was stating a general legal principle governing circumstances in which a fresh investigation can be ordered.

The present judgment goes further in paragraph 59, stating that the possibility of real culprits manipulating the investigation “cannot be ruled out”, while also making clear that it was not making a finding against any particular individual.

What activists are now alleging

Against this background, activists tracking the case are understood to be urging law-enforcement authorities to examine whether the three persons whose names have repeatedly appeared in the case could attempt to leave the country or otherwise place themselves beyond the reach of investigators before the newly ordered investigation progresses.

Mattannavar and other activists said his concern is based on the combination of factors recorded in the judgment: the longstanding allegations concerning the three persons, their earlier identification as suspects, the previous attempts to bring them into criminal proceedings, the SC finding of serious deficiencies in the earlier investigation, and the Court’s decision to restart the investigation through an entirely new SIT.

Any claim that the three are actually preparing to leave India would, however, require independent verification. The judgment itself contains no finding that any of them has booked travel, obtained a foreign destination, attempted to flee, or otherwise taken steps to evade the investigation.

What the new SIT has been ordered to do

The SC has directed the State of Karnataka to constitute an SIT headed by a senior police officer and comprising investigators familiar with modern investigative technology. 

Crucially, officers associated with the earlier Belthangady Police, CID or CBI investigations are barred from being members of the new team. The fresh investigation has been ordered to be completed within three months, followed by filing of the police report before the competent court.

At the same time, the Court has expressly protected Santhosh Rao from being subjected to a second prosecution because he has already been acquitted.

Most significantly for the three persons named above, the Court said that nothing in its judgment should be construed as expressing even a prima facie opinion regarding the role of Mallik Jain, Dhiraj Jain or Uday Jain. 

The SIT has been directed to conduct its investigation independently and without being influenced by the observations on the merits contained in the judgment.

Law-enforcement angle

For law-enforcement authorities, the activists’ allegation could therefore be framed as a request for preventive verification rather than an established flight risk. 

Any assessment of whether the three persons pose a genuine risk of leaving the country would need to be based on current, independently verifiable information — such as existing court orders, bail or other legal restrictions, immigration information available to competent authorities, travel activity or other admissible material.

The SC order itself establishes the legal and investigative context for such scrutiny, but does not establish the alleged intention to flee.

Bottom line: The strongest report is not that the three are “fleeing” or “planning to flee”. It is that activists, citing the SC decision to reopen the investigation and the long-standing investigative history surrounding the three named persons, are urging authorities to examine whether there is any risk that they could leave the country before the new SIT completes its probe. That preserves the activists’ angle while accurately reflecting the limits of what the SC has actually held.