‘Don’t get sensitive’: Court stays probe into post on Karnataka bus stand murder

The judge also observed that the law student did not want “to glorify or celebrate the incident” and that one “should not get sensitive about these incidents”.

Lavanya Gowda, a nurse at a private clinic, was hacked to death at the bus depot in Dakshina Kannada district on the evening of July 16. Her distant relative Chethan G, 22, allegedly killed her using a machete after she repeatedly ignored his demands for a relationship.

‘Process is the prosecution, milord’

Advocate Tejasvi Surya, who is also the BJP MP for Bangalore South, appeared for Aradhya. He argued that people who commented “actively” on social media platforms were being targeted.

“And we have also seen that cases have been withdrawn against persons. Interestingly, in the complaint, the complainant himself admits that in the social media post, there is no mention of religious community. Still an FIR is filed, process is the prosecution, milord,” he added.

Special Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha opposed Aradhya’s petitions, arguing that the FIR was registered against the background of the communally charged atmosphere in the state’s coastal region.

“A girl is dead. Nobody knows who has killed her, and these tweets are posted. Subsequently, the accused was arrested. When a murder happens in the coastal region, there are serious ramifications; there is a charged atmosphere in the air, people do whatever they want to do. These kinds of tweets will only aggravate, not solve, the situation. Everyone should have restraint; it is in this background the case has been registered,” he argued.

Jagadeesha further submitted that the law student had moved the court even though the Bantwal police had yet to issue him a notice, adding that the police would file a closure report if no evidence is found.

Surya responded, “Statement of a person cannot be seen in a geographical context, like how the SPP is trying to make a point here.”

‘Ununderstandable’ tweet

Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “Why are you (state) making out something from the tweet when the complainant also says nothing about it? If the investigating agency is thinking like this, then it is 153A, not what they (the petitioner) have done.”

“What can be made out of this tweet is ununderstandable,” he added.

The court issued notice to the state government and posted the matter for further hearing on August 7.