Delay in exhumation process by police inexplicable: Lawyers of complainant in Dharmasthala case
Mangaluru: Lawyers representing the key witness in the Dharmasthala mass burial case have criticised the public statement made by Superintendent of Police (SP) Dr Arun K on Wednesday, calling it misleading and dismissive of the complainant’s efforts to bring a dark chapter of history to light.
In a detailed statement issued on behalf of the complainant, advocates Dheeraj S J and Ananya Gowda expressed concern over what they called a “complete misrepresentation” of facts by the district police and said the SP’s comments fail to acknowledge the complainant’s intent, cooperation and vulnerability.
The lawyers pointed out that contrary to what the police narrative implies, the complainant did not approach the authorities initially. Instead, driven by conscience and a fear of divine justice, he came forward on his own and sought legal counsel to confess about the mass burials. The lawyers clarified that there was no active investigation or police interest in these alleged crimes until the complainant initiated contact.
They accused the police of ignoring this crucial background in their public statements, which they said gives a wrong impression to the public.
Responding to the SP’s claim that the release of information to the public compromises witness protection, the lawyers said the complainant never tried to hide his identity to avoid scrutiny. Rather, the decision to share a redacted version of the complaint and FIR through lawyers was taken in good faith to ensure transparency while ensuring the witness's safety.
“The suggestion that the police are now free from their duty to protect him because certain details have been shared is completely wrong,” the lawyers said, adding that this interpretation goes against the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
The lawyers also accused the investigating officer of attempting to violate attorney-client privilege by questioning whether the release of the complaint and FIR had the witness’s approval. They called this move a serious legal overreach, adding that it threatens fundamental legal protections available to every citizen.
They questioned the police’s discomfort with media coverage around the issue and said such behaviour creates a chilling effect on people willing to come forward with sensitive information.
Refuting the SP’s claim that the witness’s location is unknown, the lawyers said this was factually incorrect. According to them, on July 14, police officers spent more than four hours recording the complainant’s statement at an undisclosed location. Moreover, on July 13, his temporary address had been formally shared with the police over email.
“The suggestion that they are unaware of his whereabouts is simply not true. The lapse, if any, is from their side,” the lawyers added.
One of the strongest points raised in the statement was about the police's failure to act after receiving clear evidence. The complainant, in his official 164 statement (Section 183 of BNSS) recorded before a magistrate on July 11, had voluntarily handed over human remains from a burial site to the police and forensic team. This was done late in the night and took several hours of coordination.
The complainant, the lawyers said, had expected that the next day the police would accompany him back to the site for a formal inspection and evidence collection. However, no such follow-up has happened even as of July 16.
They called the delay “shocking” and said it indicated a lack of seriousness from the authorities, despite the presence of irrefutable evidence and the witness’s full cooperation.
The lawyers also revealed that the complainant fears for his life and believes that each body he helps recover reduces the motive to eliminate him. “He is not trying to run away. He wants these remains exhumed while he is still alive,” they said, urging the police to act urgently.
Wrapping up their statement, the lawyers made it clear that their client is not trying to create trouble but attempting to expose a brutal historical injustice. They urged the authorities to recognise the courage it takes to do so and not treat the complainant as an adversary.
“The complainant remains available, willing, and committed to assist the investigation,” they said, calling on the police to perform their duties responsibly and without delay.
The statement was signed by Advocates Dheeraj S J and Ananya Gowda, who have now taken charge of the case from their colleagues Ojaswi Gowda and Sachin Deshpande.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC seeks ED's response on journalist's bail plea in money laundering case
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file its response within three days on a bail plea of journalist Mahesh Langa in a money laundering case linked to an alleged financial fraud.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the jailed journalist, to file rejoinder, if needed, to the ED's response within two days of it being filed.
The top court fixed the case for further hearing on December 15.
During the brief hearing on Monday, Sibal said a journalist has been facing as many as six cases.
"The journalist is accused of extortion," the counsel for the ED said and sought a short adjournment on the ground that Solicitor General Tuhar Mehta was unavailable at the moment.
The top court on September 8 sought responses from the Gujarat government and the ED on Langa's bail plea.
While issuing the notices on Langa's bail plea, the bench asked, "What kind of a journalist is he?"
"With due respect, there are some very genuine journalists. But there are also people who on their scooter say we are 'patrakar' (journalists) and what they actually do everybody knows," the bench told Sibal.
Sibal replied that these are all allegations.
"In one FIR, he gets anticipatory bail, then a second FIR is lodged and again anticipatory bail is granted but now he is booked under a third FIR for income tax evasion. There are other things also against him," Sibal submitted.
He added that there is a background to the case also.
On July 31, the Gujarat High Court rejected Langa's bail plea in the money laundering case on the grounds that if released on bail, prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case.
On February 25, the ED said it arrested Langa in a money laundering investigation linked to an alleged financial fraud.
He was first arrested in October 2024 in a GST fraud case.
The money laundering case against Langa stems from two FIRs filed by Ahmedabad police on charges of fraud, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating and causing wrongful loss of lakhs of rupees to certain people.
