Activists not at risk of arrest, probe not limited to Chinnayya’s complaint: SIT affidavit in HC

SIT’s recent discoveries of human skulls and other remains at Bangle Gudda demonstrated that the probe had “independent dimensions unconnected to the complainant’s earlier claims.”: Affidavit

Bengaluru

The Karnataka government in the affidavit submitted in the Karnataka High Court (HC) said Soujanya activists are not at risk of arrest if they cooperate with the ongoing probe. 

A copy of the affidavit of objection filed in the HC has also been given to Mattannavar’s advocate, S Balan. The objections were submitted by the State opposing the petition filed by activist Girish Mattannavar. 

The petition had sought quashing of First Information Report (FIR), 39/2025 registered in Dharmasthala police station. Mattannavar moved HC after the Special Investigation Team (SIT) issued notices to Mahesh Shetty Thimarodi, Jayanth T and Vittal Gowda including himself. The HC stayed the FIR on October 30 and the matter is scheduled for hearing on November 12. 

The State, in a detailed statement of objections, maintained that the SIT mandate goes well beyond the complaint of V, also known as Chinnayya

h, and extends to investigating a wider pattern of alleged illegal burials in the region.

The government’s affidavit, filed under Rule 21 of the  HC Writ Proceedings Rules, urged the dismissal of the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, read with BNNS 528, calling it “not maintainable” and an “attempt to derail the investigation.” The State contended that the petitioners had suppressed material facts and were now attempting to scuttle a lawful investigation they themselves had triggered.

“No arrest if they cooperate”

The government clarified that the petitioners, who had received notices under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), faced no immediate threat of arrest. “If the petitioners cooperate with the investigation under Section 35(3) of BNSS, they will not be at risk of arrest,” the State said. It added that the power of arrest arises only on non-compliance with such a notice. The notice, it said, was “a protection measure created by law to guard against unjust and unlawful detention.”

Despite this, the government argued, the petitioners had moved the HC to evade questioning rather than assist the SIT. “If there is any apprehension of arrest, the petitioners have an alternative remedy to approach the jurisdictional court for anticipatory bail,” the State submitted.

SIT’s mandate wider than one complaint

Crucially, the State told the court that the SIT investigation, set up by a government order dated July 19, 2025, is not confined to the original complaint by Chinnayya. “The mandate of the SIT is not limited to the complaint made by ‘V’ a.k.a. Chinnayya. The ambit of the SIT includes investigations into illegal burials happening over a period of time per se,” the State said. It added that the SIT’s recent discoveries of human skulls and other remains at Bangle Gudda demonstrated that the probe had “independent dimensions unconnected to the complainant’s earlier claims.”

The SIT, headed by the Director General of Police, began its investigation on July 28, 2025, and has since conducted extensive exhumations near the Nethravathi-Snana Ghatta area. These exhumations, carried out in the presence of magistrates and government officials, were “transparent, video-recorded, and conducted with the complainant and his lawyers present,” the State said.

Twist in the case

The affidavit said that the original complainant, Chinnayya, is now being treated as an accused after he allegedly confessed that his initial claims were false and made under the “instructions and active connivance” of the petitioners. His subsequent statements under Section 183 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 164 of the CrPC) were recorded before a magistrate, where he reportedly admitted that the skull he had produced as “evidence” was handed to him by others.

According to the State, forensic examination of the skull contradicted the complainant’s claims — while he had said it belonged to a woman, medical reports from KMC Hospital, Mangaluru, and Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, confirmed it was that of a male aged 25–30. DNA and soil analysis reports are still awaited.

Following this reversal, the SIT arrested Chinnayya on August 23, 2025, after obtaining court permission to add multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including those relating to fabricating evidence, conspiracy, and false information.

Petitioners’ alleged role under scrutiny

The State’s filing accused the petitioners — identified as Mahesh Shetty Timarodi, Jayanth T, and Girish Mattannavar — of orchestrating Chinnayya’s false complaint as part of a “vendetta campaign.” It alleged that the complainant had lived under their control, and that they dictated what he should say to the police. “The complainant was staying in the house of one of the petitioners, and all other petitioners were controlling him, including what to say and what not to say before the police,” the affidavit stated.

The SIT said it was only after corroborating several of Chinnayya’s later revelations — including allegations of a murder and illegal burial — that it issued the latest Section 35(3) notices to the petitioners. These, it stressed, were lawful and part of a “meticulous, evidence-backed” investigation.

Earlier support for SIT, now reversed

The State also pointed out that one of the petitioners had earlier expressed confidence in the SIT’s integrity. In an interlocutory application filed in October 2025 in another writ petition, the same petitioner had described the SIT’s investigation as “credible and anchored to its stated mandate.” The government argued that the sudden change of stance, coming only after the petitioners received notices from the SIT, “demonstrates suppression of facts and a deliberate attempt to obstruct the process.”

State seeks dismissal of petition

Terming the petition “mala fide and premature,” the State prayed the HC to dismiss it in limine. “The petitioners are not accused in the FIR. They have only been asked to cooperate with the investigation. The writ petition is a stratagem to evade inquiry,” the affidavit said.

Reiterating that the SIT’s scope extends well beyond the original complaint, the State emphasised that the investigation has already consumed substantial public resources and must be allowed to “reach its logical conclusion.”