Bengaluru: Another explosive twist has emerged in the controversy surrounding the Dharmasthala skull case, with fresh allegations surfacing about an alleged conspiracy to tarnish the image of the renowned pilgrimage centre.
Chinnayya, who was earlier associated with the group at the centre of the controversy, has now approached the Karnataka High Court with a writ petition detailing what he claims was a well-planned operation against Dharmasthala.
Actor Prakash Raj mentioned in plea
In his petition, Chinnayya has made several sensational allegations, including the mention of actor Prakash Raj. According to him, one night at around 8 pm, Girish Mattannavar allegedly called Prakash Raj and handed over the phone to him.
Chinnayya claimed that the actor spoke to him in Tamil and advised him to make statements before authorities as instructed by Girish Mattannavar. He further alleged that he was told he would receive support if he cooperated and followed the directions given to him.
The petition also claims that a massive budget of Rs 200 crore had allegedly been earmarked for a campaign against Dharmasthala. Chinnayya has alleged that Mahesh Shetty Timarodi promised him Rs 50 lakh if he assisted in the operation.
He further claimed that funds for the alleged conspiracy originated from Kerala and that financial support was also provided by a person identified as Rama Nagaraj from Chitradurga.
According to the petition, Chinnayya has submitted details of bank transactions, including transfers made to his wife’s account, as well as information regarding cash payments allegedly linked to the operation.
He has named Mahesh Shetty Timarodi, Girish Mattannavar, Vitthal Gowda and Jayanth as the key architects of the alleged conspiracy. Chinnayya has further complained that despite revealing the names of those allegedly involved, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) has not initiated action against them.
HC takes note of petition
The Karnataka High Court has taken note of the petition and sought details regarding the status of the investigation. The matter has now been posted for further hearing on June 29.
The allegations contained in the petition are claims made by the petitioner and remain subject to investigation and judicial scrutiny.
