Belthangady: The Special Investigation Team (SIT) produced Pradeep, a close associate of Sowjanya’s uncle Vittal Gowda, before the JMFC court in Belthangady on Friday to record his statement in connection with the ongoing skull case.

SIT officials clarified that Pradeep was not arrested and was brought to the court solely for the purpose of recording his statement. “Pradeep will not be treated as a complainant witness in the case. He was produced before the court solely for recording the statement. There is no arrest at this stage,” sources said.

Statement recorded for two hours

Pradeep, a resident of Bantwal, underwent a two-hour-long session before the judge. Earlier in the day, he was interrogated by the SIT regarding his connections with Vittal Gowda, who had previously been questioned on suspicion of involvement in the case initially presented before the court by the complainant witness.

The SIT has been conducting extensive investigations in the case, which has drawn significant public attention due to its sensitive nature. Pradeep’s statement is expected to provide clarity on certain aspects of the probe, according to SIT sources.

Bail application of complainant witness

Meanwhile, the bail application of the complainant witness arrested by the SIT on August 22 has been posted for hearing on September 16. The complainant witness had previously been remanded to judicial custody on September 6 by the JMFC court in Belthangady and is currently lodged in Shivamogga jail.

During the investigation, mahazars (official notices) were conducted in Belthangady, Bengaluru, and other locations in the presence of the complainant witness to document relevant evidence. The judicial proceedings regarding the bail application were heard on Friday, and Judge Vijayendra TH reserved the order for September 16.

SIT probe continues

The SIT continues to conduct a methodical investigation into the skull case, questioning multiple individuals connected to the main parties involved. Each statement recorded in court is expected to contribute to establishing a comprehensive understanding of the case, ensuring that all aspects are verified under judicial supervision.

Pradeep’s appearance and statement before the JMFC court underline the SIT’s commitment to procedural transparency, while also maintaining the rights of individuals not yet formally named as witnesses or accused.

Conclusion

With the judicial custody of the complainant witness ongoing and additional statements being recorded, the SIT’s probe in the skull case remains active. The upcoming bail hearing on September 16 and subsequent court proceedings are likely to provide further direction on the investigation.