Dharmasthala case: Court records Chinnaiah’s statement; to continue on September 27

Dharmasthala case: Court records Chinnaiah’s statement; to continue on September 27

Mangalore Today News Network

Belthangady, Sep 26, 2025: The 45-year-old Chinnaiah, on Thursday, continued to give his statement before the Belthangady Magistrate in connection with the Dharmasthala case.

Chinnaiah was arrested by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) for perjury for his alleged false statement given earlier before the Magistrate. On his request, the Magistrate allowed him to record a fresh statement. A part of his statement was recorded by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, on Tuesday.

Recording of his statement resumed on Thursday. He is currently lodged in Shivamogga Prison. The Magistrate started recording his statement, in camera, around 1 p.m. After taking taking break for lunch, recording resumed at 3 p.m. and it went on till 5.30 p.m. The Magistrate posted the case to September 27 to continue with the recording of statement.

Identity

Meanwhile, the SIT, as part of probe into identity of seven skulls recovered at Bangalgudde on September 18, summoned sisters of Adishesha Narayana from Gubbi taluk in Tumakuru district. The driving license of Mr. Narayana was among articles recovered by SIT on September 18.

They confirmed that the license was of their brother Narayana, who was working in a bar in Bengaluru before going missing on October 2, 2013. The sisters could not identify the clothes or the skeletal remains recovered from the site, the SIT sources said.

Viral

A Supreme Court order delivered in May dismissing the writ petition filed by Chinnaiah has gone viral in the social media.

The Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, on May 5 this year, dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, by stating that the plea was related to the period 1995-2004 and it was barred by delay and laches, and could not be entertained.

“Styling this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation only besmirches its noble object. It is not a Public Interest Litigation in the true sense but one which can also be termed as ‘Publicity Interest Litigation’, ‘Paisa Interest Litigation’, ‘Private Interest Litigation’ or ‘Political Interest Litigation’,” the judges observed.