Dharmasthala mass burial case: Retired Justice Gopal Gowda demands SIT under judicial supervision
Bengaluru: Retired Supreme Court Justice Gopal Gowda has demanded the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of a sitting or retired High Court/Supreme Court judge to probe the shocking allegations of mass rapes, murders, and body disposals in Dharmasthala village of Belthangady taluk, Dakshina Kannada district.
Addressing the media at the Press Club in Bengaluru on Thursday, Justice Gowda said the complainant, who has recorded his statement before a magistrate, is still facing police pressure. He alleged that investigators are coercing the whistleblower to mark burial sites on a blank sheet of paper and that crucial information is being leaked to private individuals.
He expressed concern that despite the complainant informing both police and the court about the location of the buried remains, the police have not visited the site. “This raises serious doubts about the intention behind the current investigation,” he said.
Justice Gowda urged the state to immediately remove the current team and form a new SIT headed by a police officer of ADGP rank, monitored by a sitting or retired judge of the higher judiciary. He also warned that the Home Minister and Director General of Police would be held responsible if any harm comes to the complainant or his legal counsel, who he said are receiving threats.
Senior advocate C.S. Dwarakanath, who was also present, pointed out that under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the complainant’s statement is legally admissible evidence. He said the fact that these sensitive statements are being leaked is a grave concern. “We’ve already written to the Home Minister urging him to take immediate steps to stop these leaks,” he added.
Other lawyers present at the press conference included Balu, Dr. C.S. Dwarakanath, Umapati, and Sudha Katwa.
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.
P&H High Court denies anticipatory bail to man accused of replacing national flag with saffron flag
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Vikas Tomar, who is accused of removing the national flag from a mosque in Gurugram’s Uton village and replacing it with a saffron flag.
Justice Manisha Batra, presiding over the case Vikas Tomar @ Vikash Tomar v. State of Haryana, observed that the allegations against the petitioner were not vague but specific, and supported by conversations between him and other co-accused.
“The gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace cannot be overlooked at this stage,” the Court noted. It further stated that no exceptional circumstances had been presented that would justify granting pre-arrest bail, especially given the “serious communal and constitutional implications” of the alleged conduct.
According to the prosecution, a complaint was filed on July 7 in Bilaspur, Gurugram, reporting that anti-social elements had replaced the national flag atop a mosque with a saffron flag. Audio and video evidence were submitted along with the complaint. Two other accused were initially arrested under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971, but were granted bail the same day.
The Sessions Court had earlier denied anticipatory bail to Tomar on July 15, with Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Chauhan observing that such acts threaten the social fabric in a diverse country like India. He remarked, “Any person of ordinary prudence and slightest of patriotism in his heart would not have dared to commit such a crime.”
Tomar's counsel argued before the High Court that he was not named in the FIR and had no role in the alleged incident. However, opposing counsel representing the State and the complainant contended that Tomar aimed to provoke communal unrest in the region.
Justice Batra, after considering the arguments, concluded that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary. “No ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out,” the Court held.
Advocate Abhimanyu Singh appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Apoorv Garg represented the State of Haryana. Advocate Rosi appeared for the complainant.
The bail plea was dismissed.
