Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 274 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 320NOMINAL INDEXShri Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 274Goutham Raj S.M. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275Sidul Mandal v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & Anr.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 277X...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 274 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
NOMINAL INDEX
Shri Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
Goutham Raj S.M. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
Sidul Mandal v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & Anr.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
X v. State of Karnataka & Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
State of Karnataka & Authorities v. Employees of Private Aided Educational Institutions., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
XXX v. Registrar General of Karnataka High Court & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike & another v M/S Maya Traders & others., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
SRI MUDDURA M. SOMANNA @ PRASAD v SRI B. RAMESH, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
Miss Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
Swamy & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287
State of Karnataka v. JAR Gold Retail Private Limited & Connected Matters., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 288
Srushti v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 289
Dr. Vinuta B. & M/s Kids Clinic India Ltd. (Cloudnine Hospital) v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
Sri Ajit Hanumakkanavar v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 291
Smt. Nagarekha v. State of Karnataka & Anr.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
Fr. Elias Daniel & Ors. vs. Department of Internal Administration & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
CHADURANGA KANTHARAJ URS v UNION OF INDIA & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
Smt. Lakshmamma vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
SRI MAYUR D BHANU v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
PROF DR KAUSHIK MAJUMDAR v/s INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
Darshan v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
Dr. Mohammed Shakeel Ansari v. Union of India & Anr,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
Hindu Jagarana Vedike v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
Earth Recycler Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
MUKESH JAIN v STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
Sri G. Eshwaraiah S/o G. Narasimhulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
. Sri K N Venugopal @ Venugopala Reddy and Another vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
Hari Prakash SP & Ors.v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Shiva Shankarappa Sahukar v. Special Secretary & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
State of Karnataka v/s Pavitra Gowda & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
Naveen G. v. State of Karnataka & Anr..., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
KSRTC v. Pampapal & Other Connected Matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
B Nagendra v. Enforcement Directorate, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
Rakesh Kumar Sahu & Anr v.State of Karnataka., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
V. v .Z, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
X v.Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
Sangeetha Mehrotra vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
Abdul Jabbar v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
C v. T, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
Rahim Khan v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
Smt. Kavitha Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
V. Amaresh @ Ambarish v. State of Karnataka & Anr ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
JUDGMENTS/ORDERS
Karnataka High Court Upholds State's 120-Day Limit For Written Statements But Preserves Judicial Discretion In 'Exceptional' Cases
Case Title: Shri Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Title:WP No. 8032 of 2026 & WP No. 9372 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the state's amendment prescribing a 120-day outer limit for filing written statements. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 274]
However, the single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has 'read down' the provision to ensure that civil courts retain a 'narrow and exceptional' discretion to accept written statements beyond the 120 days in cases where denial could lead to grave 'miscarriage of justice'.
While reading down the provision to avoid inconsistency with the other portions of CPC, the court tested the amendment on the touchstone of Article 14 and notes as below”
Case Title: Goutham Raj S.M. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12679 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a 24-year-old man, accused of assaulting police personnel, while observing that merely running away from police cannot constitute 'use of criminal force' under Section 353 [Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty] of the IPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the petition by quashing the charge sheet for offences under Sections 332, 353 and 34 of the IPC.
On the early hours of December 15, 2023, when the police was night patrolling, the petitioner and another accused was stopped by the police out of suspicion. The police allegedly demanded the vehicle documents which was met with a refusal from the accused.
Later, when the complaint was registered by the Police Constable, it was portrayed as the accused assaulting the policemen and fleeing the scene.
“…Section 353 punishes a person who would stop the public servant from performance of official duties by use of criminal force. There is no allegation of use of criminal force. In fact the allegation is, petitioner ran away when the police wanted to stop him. If running away is usage of criminal force against a public servant, there cannot be a better illustration of abuse of the process of the law…”, the court noted in the order, pointing out the discrepancy in invoking Section 153.
Case Title: Sidul Mandal v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 8790 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
The Karnataka High Court has observed that facilitating fake Aadhaar and PAN cards for illegal immigrants from Bangladesh prima facie amounts to an act endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276]
The single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty thus dismissed the bail plea of Sidul Mandal, a 46-year-old man from Dhaka, accused in the racket.
“…The act committed by the petitioner as found in the charge sheet has the effect of endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India and the said act is punishable with imprisonment for life under Section 152 of BNS, 2023. However, the Investigation Officer has prima facie erred in not invoking Section 152 of BNS, 2023, in the present case against the petitioner though the charge sheet material prima facie makes out a case for the said offence…”, the Court observed in the order.
Case Title: Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & Anr.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 8044 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
The Karnataka High Court has held that a writ petition against a workers' union to restrain a proposed strike is not maintainable as a general rule under the Industrial Relations Code 2020, remarking that Trade Union does not qualify as 'State' under the Constitution.
On the other hand, an aggrieved employer could approach the Industrial Tribunal for enforcement of the statutory prohibition on strikes during conciliation proceedings. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276]
For context, proposed strike is prohibited under Section 62(1)(d) and is illegal under Section 63 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020
The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, while dismissing the writ petition filed by Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. against a strike notice issued by its Automotive Electronics Employees Union, said,
“it is evident that respondent No.2-Union does not qualify as a body discharging public duty or public function. Admittedly, the Union is neither the 'State' nor an instrumentality or agency of the State. It is neither a statutory authority nor a body substantially funded by the State. Nor is it a body required by statute to discharge any public function. In the present case, no statutory obligation involving the discharge of a public duty is imposed upon respondent No.2-Union. The petitioner is, indeed, complaining of violation of the statutory provisions of the Code, 2020 governing strikes. Such statutory obligations, however, cannot, by themselves, be equated with a public duty or public function”.
Case Title: X v. State of Karnataka & Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru
Case No: Writ Petition No. 22291/2025 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that police investigating one offence cannot turn a blind eye to evidence prima facie disclosing another serious offence, while directing the Crime Investigation Department (CID) to conduct a fresh probe into an attempt to rape case of a woman. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 278]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing the writ petition filed by the victim, censured the Thirumalashettahalli police for confining the crime merely to an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to murder), completely overlooking the 'graphic narration' of attempted sexual assault in the victim's statement.
“…It is startling, if not shocking, that the investigating agency confined the crime merely to an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Equally disquieting is the fact that the jurisdictional Court, oblivious to the tenor and substance of the victim's statement, proceeded to frame charge only for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC…. A statement which, on its plain reading, prima facie discloses ingredients of an attempt to commit rape appears to have escaped the attention of both the investigating agency and the Court below….Such an omission, at least prima facie, strikes at the very root of a fair and comprehensive investigation…”, the court observed in the order.
“…The investigation, prima facie, appears to have perceived the stab wounds but overlooked the conduct that preceded those wounds. It noticed the injuries upon the body, but failed to examine whether those very injuries were inflicted in the course of an attempt to commit a far graver offence. Such an investigation cannot be described as either comprehensive or complete…”, the court reasoned further.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Authorities v. Employees of Private Aided Educational Institutions
Case No: W.A.No.2476/2015 and 101 connected matters
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 279
Highlighting the parity between government and aided school employees, the Karnataka High Court has struck down two state enactments that sought to deny pensionary benefits and additional increments to teachers and non-teaching staff of private aided educational institutions.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 279]
The Division Bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur and Justice S.G Pandit in its order held that the two state enactments were violative of Article 14, terming it 'manifestly arbitrary' and an attempt of the legislative to overrule court judgments.
“…The impugned enactments…do not cure any defect pointed out by the Court. Nor do they fundamentally alter the legal framework upon which the earlier judgments were rendered. The enactments merely seek to negate the effect of the earlier judgments and deprive the employees of the benefits recognised thereunder. Such an exercise amounts to legislative overruling simpliciter and not a valid exercise of removal of legal basis….”, the court observed.
Case Title: XXX v. Registrar General of Karnataka High Court & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 22456 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
The Karnataka High Court has directed Google, Indian Kanoon, and others maintaining judicial records to mask the name of a woman who was acquitted in a criminal case in 2019, observing that a final acquittal must be recognised not just in courtrooms but also in the digital world. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 280]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over a single bench, held that the continued presence of the petitioner's name in online records, despite her acquittal, violated her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court also dismissed the apprehension expressed by the High Court's registry and City Civil Court Registrar that granting the relief would 'open floodgates' for similar claims.
“…Courts do not adjudicate rights by counting the number of those who may seek justice in the future. They adjudicate them by testing the legitimacy of the claim against the touchstone of the Constitution. If, indeed, the recognition of such a right were to result in many more similarly placed citizens approaching constitutional Courts seeking identical relief, so be it..”, the court firmly said.
Case: Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike & another v M/S Maya Traders & others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 694 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
Karnataka High Court has held that Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike (Mangalore Municipal Corporation) can require firecracker traders to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from fire department as a precondition to carry on their business, even in absence of an express statutory provision backing such a requirement.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 281]
“Private interest stands subordinate to public interest and public at large,” the Division Bench of Justice DK Singh and Justice TM Nadaf said while setting aside the Single Judge's order quashing the municipal corporation's directions.
The appeal arose from the Single Judge's order allowing writ petitions filed by firecracker traders, who contended that the Municipal Corporation's direction requiring them to produce an NOC lacked statutory backing and violated their fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution.
The High Court observed, “It cannot be lost sight that, in recent times, there are several fire hazards particularly in cracker shops and go-downs, claiming lives of innocents, including children,” adding that the intention of the authorities to insist on NOC is to “prevent any unfortunate hazard before it causes serious damages both life and property into its fold.”
The Court further noted that such a requirement squarely falls within the purview of reasonable restrictions under Article 19.
The Court took into account the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Karnataka State Fire and Emergency Services Department on February 1, 2024, prescribing detailed safety measures for retail sale of crackers, crackers godown and crackers manufacture units. The SOP also included annual renewal of fire license from the fire department. The Court said that it is the duty of the fire department to ensure strict adherence to the SOP and that of municipal corporation to minimize the risk of unfortunate fire hazards.
Case Title: SRI MUDDURA M. SOMANNA @ PRASAD v SRI B. RAMESH
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.636 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
The Karnataka High Court has refused to remand a cheque bounce case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) after finding that the convict had repeatedly failed to cross-examine the complainant and lead any defence evidence, holding that the case was a “classic example of abuse of process.”[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 282]
Justice HP Sandesh was hearing a revision petition challenging the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court convicting the petitioner in the cheque bounce case and seeking remand of the matter.
The Court noted that the complainant remained present before the Trial Court on 12 occasions, but the petitioner failed to cross-examine him, and instead sought exemptions on 21 hearing dates.
The Court remarked, “He made the complainant to be present before the Court for his cross-examination 12 times and instead of appearing before the Court, exemptions were filed on 21 dates of hearing.”
Case Title: M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case No.: WP 18285/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (August 5) held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC, challenging Enforcement Directorate's search and freezing action under Section 17(1A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is maintainable. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 283]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna thus rejected ED's preliminary objection to a petition moved by gaming company Gameskraft Technologies, against freezing of its bank accounts and investments based on a February 23 ECIR.
ED had contended that the freezing action, under Section 17(1A) PMLA, is exclusively civil in nature and thus not amenable to jurisdiction under Article 226 read with Section 482 of the CrPC/ 528 of BNSS.
Rejecting the argument, the Court today observed that a search under Section 17(1A) of the PMLA is not an independent civil exercise but a continuation of the criminal investigation initiated through an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
“…During the pendency of investigation into an offence of money laundering, once viewed in that perspective, the argument that search retains an exclusive civil character loses its force…. This court therefore holds that petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of CrPC challenging search and seizure proceedings that emanate from an ECIR is perfectly maintainable. Preliminary objection consequently fails. Issue answered accordingly”, the court noted in the order.
The Court held that the search, seizure and freezing powers under Section 17 are intrinsically linked to the investigation of the offence of money laundering and, therefore, cannot be viewed as having an exclusively civil character.
With the preliminary objection decided against the ED, the Court will now proceed to hear the petitions on merits.
Case Title: M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: WP 1668/2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (August 5) held that an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot place it beyond judicial scrutiny by merely describing it as an "internal administrative document". [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 284]
“….The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 is neither subservient to statutory classifications nor susceptible to being curtailed by administrative terminology. The power of judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It cannot be rendered illusory merely because the foundational document is nomenclatured as an ECIR, instead of an FIR….”, the court said.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observations while hearing a plea filed by faming company Gameskraft Technologies.
“…The label attached to a proceeding cannot eclipse its true character. Substance must always prevail over nomenclature. If the consequences are coercive, the scrutiny must be constitutional. If liberty, property and reputation stand imperilled, judicial review cannot be denied at the threshold on a plea of semantics”, the court observed.
Case Title: Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WA 675/2026 C/W WP 35404/2025 & WP 15057/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the revocation of suspension of Dr. Ashwin Hebbar, an Associate Professor accused of sexually harassing his postgraduate students. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 285]
The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice T M Nadaf also directed disciplinary action against senior officials who, it found, had attempted to protect the doctor, including Mohammed Mohsin, IAS, Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education, and Dr. Virupakshappa V, Director of the Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences (SIMS).
The Court was hearing a writ appeal filed by SIMS challenging the order of a Single Judge, as well as a writ petition filed by Dr. Hebbar challenging his transfer from SIMS to the Haveri Institute of Medical Sciences.
Describing the doctor in strong terms, the Bench observed, “…Dr. Ashwin Hebbar is a wolf in white coat. He must be proceeded not only with the pending disciplinary proceedings expeditiously, but also by the National Medical Commission and if found guilty, his license should be cancelled...”
Quoting the famous doha of Saint Kabir Das to underline the sanctity of the teacher-student relationship, the Court said, “GURU GOVIND DOU KHADE, KAKE LAGUN PAYE? BALIHARI GURU AAPNE, GOVIND DIYO BATAYEIN” [Both the Guru and God are standing before me; at whose feet should I bow? Glory be to the Guru, for it is he who revealed God to me]
Case Title: Miss Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 2169 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against an advocate accused of demanding ₹50 lakh from the mother of a murder accused by allegedly claiming that the money would be paid to a High Court judge to secure bail. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 286]
Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that allegations involving demands for money in the name of a judge transcend an ordinary cheating case and become an issue of "institutional integrity"
“…in such cases investigation is a must as the question involved is Institutional integrity. The offence of cheating allegedly committed by an individual in the normal circumstance becomes an institutional concern when such cases are projected. Therefore, there can be no question of interdiction of investigation on any ground whatsoever unless investigation would ensue and a final report is filed before the concerned Court…”, the court observed in its order.
The Court dismissed the petition filed by advocate Dayeena Banu seeking quashing of the FIR registered against her under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), holding that the allegations prima facie disclose the offence of cheating and warrant investigation.
Case Title: Swamy & Anr. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition (Crl.P) of 2026 (under Section 483 BNSS)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287
The Karnataka High Court has granted regular bail to two persons arrested for allegedly assaulting a lodge owner over his decision to name his lodge 'CSK Comfort'- a name the accused believed was a reference to the 'Chennai Super Kings' cricket team of IPL (Indian Premier League). [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287]
The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty allowed the bail petition filed by Swamy and Suprith, accused in a crime registered by Tilak Park Police Station, Tumakuru.
According to the FIR, on June 1, 2026, there was an IPL match between Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) and Gujarat Titans (GT). The complainant was running a lodge in the name of 'CSK Comforts'.
After the match ended, the accused allegedly came near the said lodge, and enquired why he had kept the name 'CSK' for the said lodge. Though the proprietor-complainant explained that 'CSK Comforts' does not refer to the 'Chennai Super Kings' cricket team, the accused allegedly abused and assaulted him, and caused damage to his property.
Case Title: State of Karnataka v. JAR Gold Retail Private Limited & Connected Matters
Case Nos: Crl.P. 5929/2026, 5930/2026, 5935/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 288
The Karnataka High Court has held that investigating officers are empowered to freeze bank accounts during investigation under Section 106 of the BNSS and are not required to invoke Section 107 for attachment of property in every case. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 288]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna made the ruling while allowing criminal petitions filed by the State of Karnataka against JAR Gold Retail Private Limited and setting aside orders of the jurisdictional court directing the defreezing of the company's bank accounts.
The Court held that Sections 106 and 107 of the BNSS operate in distinct fields and that interpreting Section 107 as the sole mechanism for securing bank accounts would render Section 106 ineffective.
“…Section 106 and 107 of the BNSS deals with different situations. An interpretative exercise that breathes life into one provision by suffocating the another is one that this Court could never undertake. The submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent[Jar Gold] would tumble down under the weight of the statutory text, binding precedents, legislative intent and inevitable consequence of the interpretation canvassed hereinabove…”, it observed.
Case Title: Srushti v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: WP 23373/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 289
The Karnataka High Court on Monday [August 10] refused to entertain a NEET aspirant's plea who had alleged a "massive discrepancy" between her online marks and her official scorecard, after the National Testing Agency (NTA) contended that the document in question [screenshot allegedly taken from the website] was forged and did not originate from its website.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 289]
The Division Bench of Justices Jayant Banerjee and T.P Vivekananda was hearing a plea filed an 18-year-old student from Vijayapura, who claimed that while a screenshot she possessed showed her securing 454 marks, her official scorecard reflected only 191 marks.
During the proceedings, the NTA, represented by Senior CGC Vinay Venugopal refuted the petitioner's claims. The testing agency submitted that the screenshot relied upon by the student was never generated from its official portal and amounted to a fabricated document.
Hearing this, the court orally expressed strong displeasure over the manner in which the petition was pursued. The bench cautioned the parents of the petitioner for exploiting the court's leniency towards minors.
Case Title: Dr. Vinuta B. & M/s Kids Clinic India Ltd. (Cloudnine Hospital) v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WP 19927/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
The Karnataka High Court has on August 10 [Monday] quashed the multiple notices under Section 94 and Section 179 of BNSS issued by the police to Cloud Nine Hospital and its staff-including its female employees, in connection with the unnatural death of a patient following a polypectomy procedure. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 290]
“….when the petitioners have responded to every notice, furnished every document sought, cooperated throughout the enquiry, and yet continue to be subjected to successive requisitions wholly disproportionate to the object of an enquiry under Section 194 of the BNSS, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned notices amount to a patent abuse of the process of law. Their continuation would not advance the object of the inquest; it would only legitimise an exercise of power that the statute itself does not sanction”, the single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted in the order while quashing the notices issued by the police.
Case Title: Sri Ajit Hanumakkanavar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No.7417 of 2019
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 291
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against Suvarna News anchor Ajit Hanumakkanavar for allegedly making disrespectful remarks about Prophet Mohammad during a televised debate. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 291]
The single judge bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani, while allowing the petition, observed that another complaint was registered against petitioner and Manager of Suvarna News 24/7 News Channel, in an FIR (Crime no.292/2018) lodged for offences under Sections 153A and 505(2) IPC which had been quashed.
The court observed that the main grounds of challenge were in respect of very same incident, wherein another FIR registered on similar allegations was quashed as the registration of multiple complaints was illegal and complaint "did not disclose essential ingredients for offences alleged".
Case Title: Smt. Nagarekha v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No.104228 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
Clarifying the criminal liability for electrocution deaths, the Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor who was charge-sheeted for the death of a labourer due to electrocution on her agricultural land. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 292]
The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanth Hegde held that mere ownership of property where a transformer is installed cannot attract criminal liability Section 304A IPC, unless there is an overt act or specific allegation of negligence against the owner.
“…In the complaint, it is stated that the electricity connection to the bore well was taken by…. accused No.2 and 3. There is no allegation that the petitioner has taken any electricity connection to the bore well. There is no allegation that the petitioner has taken illegal electricity connection…. That being the position, in case the electric wire passing through the land of the accused No.1, the owner of the property cannot be accused unless an overt act on the part of the petitioner is established or pleaded. No such allegations are made…”, the court said while allowing the FIR quashing plea.
Case Title: Fr. Elias Daniel & Ors. vs. Department of Internal Administration & Ors.
Case No: WP No.1452/2024 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
The Karnataka High Court has held that while State may on its own appoint a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) where a case needs special knowledge, it however cannot appoint an SPP on the specific request of the complainant as it goes against principle of fairness required in a criminal trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 293]
In doing so the court quashed a State Government's notification appointing Advocate Sadashiva Murthy as SPP in the murder case of Fr. Thomas K.J., the erstwhile Rector of St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary in Bengaluru.
The petitioners, Fr. Elias Daniel, Fr. William Patrick, and Carmel Pete have been booked for offences under Sections 302, 201, 149 r/w Section 120B of IPC, for the murder of Fr. Thomas K.J. on March 31, 2013.
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held:
“…. An accused has no right to choose, or to object to, the prosecutor who is to prosecute him. In the same way, a complainant can have no right to choose the prosecutor who is to prosecute the accused, and much less to have a particular person appointed by name. It is one thing for the State, on its own, to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor where the case needs special knowledge that the regular Public Prosecutor may not have. It is quite another thing for the State to appoint a named person at the specific request of the complainant. The first may be proper; the second is not, and it goes against the fairness that a criminal trial requires.”
Case Title: CHADURANGA KANTHARAJ URS v UNION OF INDIA & others, WRIT PETITION NO. 53075/2015
VENKATRAO Y. GHORPADE & another v UNION OF INDIA & others,
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3221 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the vires, applicability of Section 5(ii) Hindu Succession Act–which exempts Act's applicability on estates passing to a single heir under a covenant between an erstwhile Ruler and the Indian Government or under a law enacted before the Act came into force–on personal properties, impartible estate of former rulers.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 294]
The Court held that the provision is not rendered redundant merely because Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution— which guaranteed privy purse, rights and privileges to former Rulers — were deleted by the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
Justice MGS Kamal said:
“Articles 291 and 362 were only with respect to guarantees and assurances made by the Dominion of India with regard to payment of Privy Purse, personal rights, privileges, dignities and titles of erstwhile Rulers of Princely States of India and not with respect to their personal private properties and "Gaddi", impartible estate
The provisions of Section 5(ii) of the Act, 1956 will have its relevance to the extent of providing rules of succession to an 'impartible estate”, to be according to law and custom in view of covenants contained in instruments of merger at Article IV of Annexure-D and Article 5 of Annexure-F.
Case Title: Smt. Lakshmamma vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: WP No. 33179/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
The Karnataka High Court has rapped the State authorities for failing to complete a housing project under the Chief Minister's 1 Lakh Bengaluru Housing Scheme, despite receiving payment from a beneficiary, observing that the authorities were “making retired people run around”.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 295]
Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observation while allowing a petition filed by a woman seeking refund of the amount paid towards a flat under the scheme.
The Court directed the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation to refund the amount paid by the petitioner, along with 6% interest per annum calculated from the respective dates of payment until repayment. It orally remarked,
“…Retired people, you are making them run around”.
SRI MAYUR D BHANU v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
WRIT PETITION No.16181 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
While flagging the "disturbing trend" of criminal proceedings being lodged against lawyers for carrying out professional obligations, the Karnataka High Court remarked that as long as advocates act professionally their conduct cannot be criminalised merely because his advise displeases the adversary.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 296]
In doing so the court quashed a FIR against a lawyer over allegations of cheating and criminal intimidation where the lawyer, who appears for a co-accused, was accused of issuing a telephonic threat to the complainant.
Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order said:
"This Court has, of late, witnessed an increasing and disturbing trend where Advocates, merely because they discharge their professional obligations in representing litigants or legally assisting them, are sought to be implicated in criminal proceedings. Their only perceived offence is that they stood beside their clients, articulated their cause before judicial fora and performed the duties which the legal profession demands of them. Such attempts strike at the very independence of the Bar, an institution that forms one of the indispensable pillars sustaining the administration of justice.
So long as the Advocate acts within the bounds of law and professional ethics, his or her conduct cannot be criminalised merely because his representation or advise displeases the adversary. If criminal prosecution becomes the inevitable consequence of fearless advocacy, the legal profession itself would be reduced to one of apprehension rather than independence. The majesty of the Bar cannot be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled litigants wielding the criminal process as a weapon of retaliation or intimidation against officers of the Court".
Case title: PROF DR KAUSHIK MAJUMDAR v/s INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12748 OF 2015 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
The Karnataka High Court has directed Bengaluru's Indian Statistical Institute to complete the proposed construction of disabled-friendly accommodation within two years, notwithstanding the availability of funds. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 297]
The court passed the order in a plea by a specially abled Associate Professor working with the institute who had sought various reliefs including direction to ISI Administrators to provide appropriate infrastructural facilities to the persons with physical disabilities in general and to the Petitioner in particular, including suitable accommodation, transportation and other facilities.
The plea further sought direction to ISI to constitute a permanent committee, within the ISI, at each of its Centres to deal with the issues confronted by disabled persons; to formulate appropriate policies providing for reservation for candidates with disabilities/physically handicapped persons in recruitment and promotions; as contemplated in Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act 1995.
Darshan v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (August 13) dismissed a petition filed by Kannada actor Darshan, Accused No. 2 in the Renukaswamy murder case, challenging the trial court's refusal to allow him to file objections to a co-accused's application to turn approver.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 298]
Justice M Nagaprasanna held that a co-accused has no right of audience at the stage when a court is considering an application by another accused seeking pardon and permission to turn approver under Section 307 CrPC.
“….You are nobody. An accused is a nobody to say another co-accused turning an approver and his application for the same should seek the other accused's approval, or else, the application is not maintainable," the court orally observed.
Darshan had approached the High Court against an order of the trial court rejecting his request to file objections to the application filed by Pradosh Rao, Accused No. 14, seeking permission to turn approver in the high-profile murder case.
Case Title: Dr. Mohammed Shakeel Ansari v. Union of India & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No.6821 of 2023 (S-CAT)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a lecturer of the National Institute of Unani Medicine (NIUM) who sought counting of his past service as Clinical Registrar for extending benefits under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 299]
The Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao affirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru Bench, which had earlier rejected the petitioner's claim.
“Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the fact that the petitioner entered the post of Lecturer by way of lateral entry without break in service.…Continuity of service is distinct from entitlement to count past service rendered in another cadre for promotional or financial benefits. Unless the governing Rules or the Scheme specifically provide for such reckoning, no such right can be claimed merely because there was no break in service…”, the Court clarified.
Case Title: Hindu Jagarana Vedike v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No. 25036 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (August 14) quashed the police's refusal to permit a torchlight march proposed by Hindu Jagarana Vedike in Mysuru, observing that citizens cannot be prevented from celebrating Independence Day over apprehensions of communal tension. [2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 300]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the authorities to permit the organisation to conduct its 'Akhanda Bharatha Sankalpa Diwas' torchlight march from RMC Ganesha Temple to Doddagadiyara Circle in Mysuru between 5:30 PM and 7:30 PM on August 14.
“…Independence Day is required to be celebrated by every citizen of India. Such being the case, the Independence Day is being proposed to be celebrated, there cannot be any issues raised as regards communal tension or otherwise… The last submission made by AAG is that as regards to some of the organising members, FIRs and chargesheets are filed, and there is a possibility of them involving in unlawful activities which could disturb public peace. Merely because chargesheets have been filed against certain persons does not mean they cannot be allowed to participate in Independence Day celebrations…”, the court observed
Case Title: Earth Recycler Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No.9114/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)301
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Earth Recycler Pvt. Ltd. and its directors seeking quashing of the FIR registered against them for allegedly collecting expired food products, re-labelling them, and selling them to the unsuspecting public. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 301]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the allegations of re-labelling expired food products and pushing them back into the market constitute a 'calculated assault on public health', and cannot be viewed as a mere regulatory infraction.
“…The re-labelling of expired food products and their re-entry into the stream of commerce is not a mere infraction of food-safety regulation; it is a calculated assault on public health. An expiry date is not an ornamental inscription on a package, capable of being erased and replaced at the whim of a trader. It marks the outer boundary beyond which the safety and quality of the product for human use can no longer be assured. Once that boundary is crossed, deterioration, microbial contamination, chemical alteration and loss of nutritional integrity may set in, sometimes silently and without any visible warning. …To erase an expiry date, affix a fresh label and place such a product back on the shelf is, therefore, to dress decay in the garb of freshness and deception in the attire of trade.”
Case Title: MUKESH JAIN v STATE OF KARNATAKA
WRIT PETITION No.5267 OF 2026 (GM - RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
The Karnataka High Court has held that courts dealing with seized property under Section 497 BNSS must strictly adhere to the prescribed timelines for its disposal, requiring preparation of the property's statement within 14 days of its production before the court and an order regarding its disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery within the subsequent 30 days.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 302]
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that Section 497(2) and Section 497(5) BNSS collectively prescribe a 45-day period from the date of seizure for the concerned court or Magistrate to pass an order regarding disposal of the seized property.
“The timeline for disposal of property that is confiscated is under two provisions of law. One is under Section 497 (2) of the BNSS where preparation of statement of all properties brought before the Court must be done within 14 days from the production of properties and two, under Section 497(5) of the BNSS which mandates the concerned Court to pass an order for disposal of the property within 30 days from the date of preparation of the statement under Section 497(2) of the BNSS. Therefore, in all, the concerned Court is required to pass an order within 45 days from the date of the seizure,” Justice M Nagaprasanna observed.
Case Title: Sri G. Eshwaraiah S/o G. Narasimhulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Others
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 9560 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
Clarifying the rights of complainants in anti-corruption cases, the Karnataka High Court has recently held that the de-facto complainant who arranges 'trap money' cannot be left in the lurch until the conclusion of a prolonged trial to recover their funds. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 303]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing a plea, also iterated the comprehensive guidelines for the expeditious release and disposal of various categories of seized property, including cash, vehicles, and digital evidence, as laid down by the apex court and other High Courts.
“…the complainant is, beyond any pale of doubt, the rightful owner and lawful custodian of the trap money. Yet, the recognition of ownership, if divorced from possession, is but a barren declaration. A person may possess title in law, but if he is denied enjoyment of the property for years together without any legal necessity, such title becomes illusory and reduced to a mere abstraction. The law cannot content itself with acknowledging ownership while simultaneously permitting prolonged deprivation of its enjoyment”, the court laid down in the order.
Case Title: Sri K N Venugopal @ Venugopala Reddy and Another vs. The State of Karnataka and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 20839 of 2026 (LB-BMP)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
The Karnataka High Court has held that municipal authorities cannot impose the post-facto condition of executing a Relinquishment Deed for land without consideration, as a prerequisite for granting an Occupancy Certificate (OC), especially when such a condition was not imposed at the time of sanctioning the building license. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 304]
The single judge bench of Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad has allowed a plea filed by property owners who were asked by the Town Planning Authorities to relinquish over 656 square meters of land for road widening, without assuring any compensation, to secure the Occupancy Certificate for his completed building.
“…The petitioners' request for an Occupancy Certificate should be examined based on the conditions upon which the sanction is granted and the construction is completed. Indisputably, the relinquishment was not insisted upon while granting the building license and sanctioned plan, and this relinquishment is not insisted upon even when the Commencement Certificate is issued. Post-facto conditions cannot be insisted upon, and there must be a specific provision permitting the same if such conditions are to be sustained….”, the court laid down in the order.
Case Title: Hari Prakash SP & Ors.v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case Number: WP No. 805 of 2014 & WP No. 5693 of 2014
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Concerning the maintainability of writ petitions against private educational institutions, the Karnataka High Court has held that private, unaided institutions are not 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, and disputes regarding the payment of salary by such institutions are purely contractual matters lacking a 'public law element'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 305]
The single judge bench of Justice Ashok S. Kinagi dismissed two pleas filed by 89 non-teaching staff members of PES Pharmacy College and PES Institute of Technology (led by the Peoples Education Society), seeking a mandamus directing the management to pay salaries on par with Government educational institutions.
“…in the instant case… petitioners submitted that the respondent-University are bound by the Regulations of AICTE and UGC which provides for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staffs. Admittedly, the said university is a private university does not qualify as the State or Instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, making private employment disputes. Admittedly, the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents is in regard to the payment of salary. The said dispute is unmaintainable as the University is a private university and does not qualify as the State or Instrumentality of the State”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Shiva Shankarappa Sahukar v. Special Secretary & Anr.
Case No: WP 21376/2026
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 306
The Karnataka High Court has on August 18[ Tuesday] quashed the suspension of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) Chairman Shivasankarappa Sahukar, holding that the order was passed without the constitutionally mandated 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers under Articles 163 and 166. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 306]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj partly allowed the writ petition filed by Sahukar, who was suspended by the Governor following a resolution by KPSC members seeking his resignation.
“…The impugned suspension order dated 10.07.2026, bearing No. ... passed in purported exercise of power under Article 317(2) of the Constitution of India and communicated by respondent No. 2, is hereby quashed. As a consequence, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner as the Chairman of the KPSC within 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner, upon reinstatement, is entitled to function and officiate as the KPSC Chairman and is entitled to all consequential arrears and monetary benefits flowing from the service….”, the court noted initially in the order.
Case Title: State of Karnataka v/s Pavitra Gowda & Ors.
Case No: CRL.P No. 6820/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
Clarifying the applicable principles regarding the cross-examination of one's own witness under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Karnataka High Court has on August 18 [Tuesday] dismissed a petition by the State seeking to cross-examine the mother of the deceased in the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case involving actor Darshan. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 307]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while upholding the trial court's order, held that a witness cannot be subjected to cross-examination by the party that called her merely because of a 'stray answer' or 'inconvenient' testimony.
“…A witness does not become hostile merely because every syllable uttered by the said witness does not march to the drumbeat of the party who summoned him. Nor does Section 154 of the Evidence Act confer upon a party an automatic right to cross-examine its own witness whenever an answer turns inconvenient. Inconvenience is not hostility; discrepancy is not disloyalty; and an isolated departure is not necessarily an abandonment of the case. Something more must be demonstrated before the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Evidence Act can be invoked…”, the court opined.
Case Title: Naveen G. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 4666 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
The Karnataka High Court has held that allegations of a man persistently stalking a woman, threatening to circulate photographs of her and repeatedly sabotaging her marriage prospects, despite her refusal and an earlier suicide attempt, prima facie made out a case of abetment to suicide.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 308]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna refused to quash criminal proceedings against the accused, holding that the allegations, if read cumulatively, disclosed the ingredients of abetment requiring adjudication at trial.
It dismissed the petition seeing the quashing of proceedings under Sections 75 (sexual harassment), 78 (stalking), and 108 (abetment to suicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
“The case at hand cannot be characterised as one where the allegations are bereft of the ingredients of abetment. This is not a case of one angry word spoken in the heat of a moment. It is not a case of an isolated quarrel followed, after a considerable hiatus, by suicide. Nor is it a case where the accused is sought to be prosecuted merely because he happened to figure somewhere in the emotional landscape of the deceased. The allegations travel much farther”, the court said.
“…The complaint and the charge sheet, if read as a whole, prima facie depict the deceased being progressively cornered- her refusal allegedly ignored, her privacy threatened, her workplace invaded by pursuit, her matrimonial prospects repeatedly sabotaged and her apprehension that she would not be permitted to lead a life independent of the petitioner allegedly reinforced by his continued conduct. Whether every one of these allegations is true, is not for this Court to decide today…”, the court inferred further about the mens rea aspect of the petitioner-accused which is yet to be ascertained in the trial.
Case Title: KSRTC v. Pampapal & Other Connected Matter
Case No: MFA No. 6955/2018 (KSRTC vs. Pampapal), MFA No. 8569/2018 (Pampapal vs. KSRTC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
Interpreting the term 'homemaker', the Karnataka High Court has held that even highly qualified post-graduates who render services at home are entitled to compensation for loss of future earnings if they are not working elsewhere at the relevant time. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 309].
The Court rejected KSRTC's argument that the claimant, who holds a Master's Degree in Biotechnology and had worked as a Guest Lecturer, cannot be regarded as a homemaker.
“…Every woman who renders services to her family members at home is liable to be regarded as a 'HOMEMAKER' irrespective of the fact that such woman holds higher qualification either it is a Degree or Post Graduation or a Doctorate. Even a working woman or a professional can be considered to be a home maker so long as such woman renders services at home taking care and looking after the welfare of the family members.…”, the court held.
Case Title: B Nagendra v. Enforcement Directorate
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 12007/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
The Karnataka High Court on August 20 (Thursday) allowed a petition filed by B. Nagendra, a Cabinet Minister in the Karnataka Government, permanently relaxing a bail condition imposed on him in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case arising out of the alleged misappropriation of funds from the Valmiki Scheduled Castes Development Corporation. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 310]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna deleted the condition imposed by the trial court requiring Nagendra to obtain prior written permission before leaving Karnataka. The Court, however, made it clear that he cannot travel outside India without the permission of the concerned trial court or the High Court.
“….in light of him being a minister in the cabinet, and holding the portfolio…. would necessarily require him to travel beyond the shores of this jurisdiction. In light of the said circumstances, while observing that petitioner cannot travel without the permission of concerned court or this court beyond the shores of this nation, petitioner is free to travel within the country, as not permitting him to travel within the court would curtail his liberty and the post he is holding today …The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed…. Condition No. (c) imposed in the bail order dated 14.10.2024 in Crl. Misc. No. 7892/2024, which reads "The petitioner shall furnish his passport to the Court and shall not leave the State without obtaining written permission from the Court," stands deleted …”, the court said.
The condition deleted by the Court had required the petitioner to surrender his passport and not leave the State without obtaining written permission from the Court.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Sahu & Anr v.State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 4677/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
The Karnataka High Court has disposed of a petition filed by two Estate Officers of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in connection with a case concerning the disappearance of 21 stray dogs from the DRDO campus in Bengaluru, after noting that the investigation has been completed and the chargesheet filed. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 311]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna recorded that one of the petitioners, Rakesh Kumar Sahu, has been dropped from the array of accused in the chargesheet, while the second petitioner has been retained as an accused in the final report.
The Court was informed by the Additional Solicitor General and CGC Vinay Venugopal that the first petitioner did not figure in the chargesheet. When counsel for the complainant objected to his exclusion, the Court said that while it could not curtail the complainant's rights, the appropriate remedy would be to take recourse before the trial court.
At the outset, the Court took note of the submissions made by the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) and CGC Vinay Venugopal that the first petitioner does not figure in the chargesheet. When the counsel for the complainant raised objections regarding the dropping of the first petitioner, the Court remarked that though it can't curtail the rights of the complainant, the apt recourse would be before the trial court.
“…. The investigation stands complete and the chargesheet is filed before the concerned court. The chargesheet drops first petitioner from array of accused, retains the second petitioner and chargesheet is filed before concerned court on 2nd petitioner. The counsel for complainant submits that he has objections to dropping of first petitioner from the array of accused, therefore liberty is reserved to the complainant to take recourse to law if they are so aggrieved by the filing of the final report before the concerned court…The subject petition stands disposed of… Liberty is further reserved to these parties to knock the doors of this court in the event of need in the future”, the court accordingly noted in the order.
Case Title: V. v .Z
Case No: WP 4677/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
he Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a husband's revision petition against a maintenance order, while observing that treating a wife as an 'employee' hired to do household chores and insisting upon seeking prior permission to visit her parents is contrary to the 'constitutional spirit of human dignity and social justice'.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 312]
“…This Court does not understand why an Indian woman is required to take permission of all present at her matrimonial home to fulfil her basic desire of visiting her parents house as and when she wish and feels to go. This Court is of the view that anyone including husband cannot command and demand any female including his wife to do the household activities and to look after, his parents. Household activities have to be shared by men and women equally…”, the court observed.
The single judge bench of Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha made the remarks while dismissing a revision petition filed by the husband, who challenged the Family Court's order directing him to pay Rs. 9,000 per month in maintenance to his estranged wife and minor daughter.
Case Title: X v.Y
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 20839 of 2026 (LB-BMP)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
Imposing a fine of Rs 5 lakhs on a father who allegedly 'abducted' his minor daughter from the Family Court premises, the Karnataka High Court has recently directed the immediate return of child's custody to the mother. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 313]
The single judge bench of Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha allowed a plea preferred by the mother, while setting aside the Bengaluru Family Court's order dated July 29, 2026, which had dismissed her application seeking production and restoration of custody of her minor daughter aged around 7 years.
“…Abruptly taking the custody of the child without at least enquiring the child whether she is willing to accompany and giving time to the child at least to think about, to respond and to make up her mind, is in clear violation of basic human rights…Adults as well as children have equal human rights. In the case on hand, the child was taken away as if she is a commodity or lifeless object…”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Sangeetha Mehrotra vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No.: CRL.P No. 9793/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (August 25) quashed criminal proceedings against a senior citizen whose 10 Golden Retrievers allegedly attacked a lawyer on his way to court, questioning “which court was open” on the Sunday when the alleged incident took place.[2026 (Kar) LiveLaw 314]
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the complaint was “so vague” and the police action “so cryptic” that the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the senior citizen after the pendency of the criminal case prevented her from renewing her passport. She had been booked under Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code (negligent conduct with respect to animals).
Case Title: Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 9779 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (August 24) quashed a chargesheet against the owner of a homestay in Kodagu who was booked for failing to report a sexual assault on a US national at his property, along with offences under the repealed Foreigner's Act, 1946. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 315]
Justice M. Nagaprasanna in his order said:
“Section 239 of the BNS punishes the breach of a legal duty; it does not create one out of silence. …If there is no legal duty, there can be no legally culpable omission; and if there can be no legally culpable omission, Section 239 of the BNS cannot be summoned merely because the prosecution alleges knowledge…. To permit it to survive would be to convert a provision punishing breach of a legal duty into one punishing breach of a perceived moral duty. The two are not synonymous. Morality may expect a citizen to speak; criminal law can punish his silence only when the statute commands him to speak. A moral expectation cannot, by prosecutorial alchemy, be converted into a penal obligation”, the court underscored.
Case Title: Abdul Jabbar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Criminal Petition Nos. 10339/2025, 10314/2025, 10321/2025, 15550/2025, 16275/2025, 16338/2025, 16367/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed multiple pleas seeking cancellation of bail granted to persons accused in a mob lynching case over the victim allegedly chanting pro-Pakistan slogans, while also issuing directions to ensure compliance with the apex court guidelines in Tehseen S Poonawalla v. Union of India with respect to interim compensation and issuing notice to victim's kin. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 316]
The single bench of Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil also iterated the guidelines issued in Tehseen Poonawalla and demanded its strict compliance, including grant of interim compensation and notice to be issued to the victim or victim's kin before granting bail to accused in mob lynching/violence cases.
“…The Government Order…. along with the memo [filed by the state on compliance with Tehseen Poonawalla]] indicates the compensation to be provided to the victims or the next of kin of the victims. However, it is to be noticed that the said order does not contain any provision for grant of interim compensation to the victim or the next of his/her kin as per the guidelines in the case of TEHSEEN S POONAWALLA, referred supra. Hence, I am of the considered view that the State is required to be directed to formulate a scheme to inculcate the provision for interim compensation to the victims or the next of their kin in consonance with the guidelines in the case of TEHSEEN S POONAWALLA…”, the court said.
Case Title: C v. T
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 8362/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a decree of divorce granted on the ground of mental cruelty, and permanent alimony granted to his wife by the Family Court. While doing so, the court made a crucial distinction that mere separate living within the same premises, by itself, cannot be treated as cruelty. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 317]
“…Standing by itself, such an arrangement [separate rooms] cannot be treated as cruelty. The mere fact that spouses occupy separate rooms, without anything more, would not justify a finding of cruelty. What is relevant is the surrounding circumstances in which such separation took place and the manner in which the matrimonial relationship had otherwise progressed….”, the court observed in the order.
The Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan underscored that spouses occupying separate rooms in the same house, without anything more, would not justify a finding of cruelty.
“…One circumstance which assumes significance is that, for a considerable period, the parties, though residing in the same premises, occupied separate rooms and were leading substantially separate lives. The appellant[husband] himself has admitted that the parties were residing separately within the same premises, with the appellant occupying one room and the respondent occupying another room along with one of the children….”, the court added.
Case Title: Rahim Khan v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 8071 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against Bidar Congress MLA Rahim Khan for allegedly using a loudspeaker for election campaigning two minutes beyond the permitted time of 10 PM. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 318]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing the MLA's plea, held that a difference of merely two minutes cannot be treated as an offence, particularly when there is no standard clock prescribed for determining the exact time.
“…Two minutes in what, which is the standard clock that is seen, is not even indicated. According to the flying squad, it is two minutes. According to the petitioner, it was only 10 p.m. For two minutes, a crime is registered on this disputed question of fact…”, the Court pointed out.
Case Title: Smt. Kavitha Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Criminal Petition No.17375 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a trial court order accepting police's second 'B' report in a case involving the alleged suicide of a student who is claimed to have left behind a death note stating 'marks is not everything' while naming her principal, teachers, and classmates. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 319]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing the criminal petition filed by the mother of the deceased, noted:
“…In the considered view of this Court, the case could not have been closed by accepting the 'B' report. The re-investigation proceeded on a completely different footing on a wrong provision of law that it is an abetment to suicide of an adult under Section 306 of the IPC, while it was an abetment to suicide of a child under Section 305 of the IPC. If it is abetment to suicide of a child, the rigours of investigation would be completely different. The analysis and examination of the outcome of the investigation again would completely differ as the psychological impact of any harassment of the school or teachers on a child, compared to the adult, is different…”, the court pointed out that this difference was not taken into account by the trial court or the investigating officers.
Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines For Trial Courts & Police On Section164 CrPC Statement, Says Copies Must Be Furnished To Accused
Case Title: V. Amaresh @ Ambarish v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Appeal No.366 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
Upholding the right to a fair trial, the Karnataka High Court has recently acquitted a POCSO accused, while simultaneously issuing suo motu guidelines for Investigating Officers and trial Courts on recordview of Section 164 CrPC [Section 183 BNSS] statements, as well as the mandatory furnishing of statements recorded to the accused. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 320]
The Division Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice G Basavaraja allowed the appeal filed by the accused and set aside the sentence of conviction rendered by a Kolar court.
“…An accused, howsoever grave the accusation, is entitled to a fair trial, to know the precise charge he is called upon to meet, to have that charge tested on legally admissible and reliable evidence, and to the benefit of every reasonable doubt that genuinely arises from the record. The graver the offence and the greater the resultant stigma and sentence, the more scrupulous must be the Court's scrutiny of the evidence before conviction for it is equally true that a wrongful conviction is no less a miscarriage of justice than a wrongful acquittal”, the court noted in the order.