Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 194Nominal IndexSmt. Marry Usha v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171Christophe Stephane Monxion v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 172The Managing Director, KKRTC v. Sunita and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 173X v. Y & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 174Bharath Earth Movers Employees...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
Nominal Index
Smt. Marry Usha v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
Christophe Stephane Monxion v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Managing Director, KKRTC v. Sunita and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
X v. Y & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 174
Bharath Earth Movers Employees Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
S v. R & Anr..,2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 176
Shri Ranveer Singh v/s State of Karnataka & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
Smt. Vanitha S. v. The Special Officer and Competent Authority for IMA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
Channakeshava D.R v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
Gregory F. Peres v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)180
Srinivasa S & ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
Evergreen Recyclekaro India Limited vs. Bharat Electronics Limited & MSTC Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
Darshan Srinivas v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
Fayaz Khan v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 184
Younus Khan v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
Shri Sheenappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
Irfan Pasha v. National Investigation Agency, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
Mr. Riyaz Ahmed v. Karnataka State By North Traffic P.S., Mangalore, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
M.B. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 189
Cristian Soporuchukwu v. State of Karnataka ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
Mahesh Shetty Thimarody v. State of Karnataka , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
Sri Manjunatha N. v. State of Karnataka & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
Sri Pradeepkumar v. State by Vidhana Soudha Police Station & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 193
Mr. Nixon v. State by Banaswadi Police Station & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Smt. Marry Usha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WPHC No. 35 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
The Karnataka High Court held last week [April 29] that a preventive detention order passed against a 19-year-old under the Karnataka Goonda Act, 1985 would stand vitiated since most of the offences forming the foundation of the said order were committed by the detenu when he was a juvenile.
The division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju allowed a habeas corpus plea filed by the detenue's mother and set aside the detention order issued in December 2025 by the State's home department.
The court also clarified that no 'subjective satisfaction' could have been derived from the offences committed as a Juvenile so as to pass a detention order under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985.
Case Title: Christophe Stephane Monxion v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer
Case No: Writ Petition No. 10453 of 2026 (GM-PASS)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Karnataka High Court has refused to set aside a 'Leave India' notice issued against a French national for running a restaurant in Gokarna on a tourist visa for the past 15 years, holding that foreign nationals have no fundamental right to reside or carry on their business in India.
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has directed Christophe Stephane Monxion, a French national who entered India on a tourist visa, to leave the country within seven days in accordance with the 'Leave India' notice issued through WhatsApp by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO).
“…The protection under Article 21 extends to all “persons,” including foreign nationals; however, the said protection is confined to ensuring that no person is deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. The said guarantee cannot be expanded to confer a right to reside, settle, or carry on business within the territory of India. Such rights are traceable to Article 19(1)(e) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which are expressly confined to citizens of India”, the court accordingly held in the order dated 22nd April.
Case Title: The Managing Director, KKRTC v. Sunita and Others
Case No: MFA No. 201877 of 2025 (MV-D)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
The Karnataka High Court dismissed Kalyan Karnataka Road Transport Corporation's plea (KKRTC) challenging compensation of Rs 1.1 Crore in a motor accident claim, noting that the corporation suppressed the removal of the driver in disciplinary proceedings over the incident and had yet blamed the deceased for negligence.
The Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha observed that the Corporation cannot take the contradictory stand that the negligence was entirely on the part of the deceased victim when it had already expelled or punished its employees in departmental proceedings for their negligence. It thus imposed cost of Rs 25,000 to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
"The action initiated by the Road Transport Corporation, namely Kalyana Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, against its driver and conductor arises out of the very same accident in which the death of the deceased occurred. The Corporation, having conducted disciplinary proceedings and having recorded a finding of culpability against its employees, culminating in orders of removal from service or withholding of increment, cannot now be permitted to contend that the deceased himself was negligent and that such alleged negligence was the proximate cause of his death”, the court noted.
Case Title: X v. Y & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 5971/2026 c/w Writ Petition No. 4443/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 174
In a matter relating to the custody of a minor girl, the Karnataka High Court quashed a Family Court's ex parte interim injunction order which completely barred the mother from having access to the daughter till the completion of the child's year-end exams in June.
A single-judge bench of Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao allowed the writ petitions filed by the mother and vacated the interim stay granted in favour of the child's paternal grandmother and paternal aunt on April 24.
The court said that the mother -a natural guardian of the teenage daughter under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - cannot be fully restricted from meeting her child, in the absence of 'compelling justifications', even if the interim order is for a limited time period.
“…Though the impugned order[Family Court's] does not expressly displace such status [mother as a natural guardian], its effect is to substantially curtail the petitioner's ability to exercise the incidents of natural guardianship. By continuing an order of injunction …the Family Court has, in substance, diluted the statutory recognition accorded under Section 6….at the interlocutory stage. In a situation where the dispute is not between two natural guardians, any order resulting in complete exclusion of the mother must be supported by compelling circumstances demonstrable from the record”, the court said.
Case Title: Bharath Earth Movers Employees Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 19885 of 2025 (clubbed with WP Nos. 15749 & Other Connected Matters)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
The Karnataka High Court has held that employees belonging to exempted establishments could still claim higher pensions post-2014 under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 [Scheme, 1995], through a joint option, provided that they have been contributing on actual wages to the provident fund, even when the contribution is paid on capped wages to the pension scheme.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, while quashing multiple EPFO rejection orders, held that members of the Provident Fund Trusts of the exempted establishments, who have contributed to the Provident Fund on actual wages (not on capped wages), but contributed to the Pension Fund only on the capped pensionable wages (not on actual wages), can rightly claim a higher pension.
This is permissible under Paragraph 11(4) [Determination of Pensionable Salaries] of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, by exercising a joint option for a higher pension along with the employer, even after the supposed cut-off date in September 2014 to opt for higher pension options, the court added.
Case Title: S v. R & Anr.
Case No: MFA No. 200082 of 2017
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
The Karnataka High Court has held that a claim by a person that their spouse has accused them of suffering from a grave illness like HIV/AIDS won't amount to mental cruelty in order to seek divorce, unless corroborated with sufficient evidence.
The Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Dr Justice Chillakure Sumalatha, setting aside the decree for divorce, opined that the Family Court erred in granting the divorce decree by blindly accepting the husband's uncorroborated testimony that his wife had accused him of suffering from the ailment of HIV/ AIDS.
"The case of the husband is that the wife and her parents subjected him to ill-treatment, used abusive and vulgar language, and further imputed that he was suffering from HIV/AIDS. These allegations, if established, would undoubtedly fall within the ambit of mental cruelty as contemplated under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly having regard to the serious and stigmatic nature of such imputations. However, the critical question is not the nature of the allegation but whether such allegation has been proved in accordance with law. In support of his case, the husband has examined himself as PW.1. No documentary evidence has been produced. No independent witness has been examined. There is no contemporaneous material, such as complaints, correspondence, or testimony of persons who may have witnessed the alleged conduct, to lend assurance to the version of the husband. Thus, the finding of cruelty rests solely on the uncorroborated and interested testimony of the husband".
Case Title: Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 6850/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (May 7) granted bail to one of the accused in alleged mob-lynching of a man from Kerala who purportedly chanted pro-Pakistan slogans at a cricket stadium in Mangalore's Kudupu Village last year.
The single judge bench of V Srishananda passed the order granting bail to the third accused- Manjunatha Mallikarjuna.
The court directed the accused to be released from the custody upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 1 Lakh along with two sureties to the like sum. Senior Counsel Aruna Shyam appeared for the petitioner-accused.
Case Title: Smt. Vanitha S. v. The Special Officer and Competent Authority for IMA
Case No: Writ Petition No. 5049 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
The High Court has held that an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application seeking rejection of plaint at the threshold claiming no cause of action, would not be maintainable in summary proceedings under Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (KPIDFE) Act.
“The KPIDFE Act provides a self-contained mechanism, beginning from ad-interim attachment under Section 3 of the KPIDFE Act, confirmation through Special Court under Section 12 of the KPIDFE Act, adjudication of claims and objections, final orders regarding attachment. The entire scheme is time-bound and recovery-oriented, unlike ordinary civil litigation…The KPIDFE Act is designed to secure immediate protective measures in respect of the properties of defaulting financial establishments so as to safeguard the interests of depositors. If applications invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC are entertained at the threshold of such proceedings, the inevitable consequence would be to derail and delay the process of attachment and preservation of assets, introduce preliminary adjudicatory stages not contemplated by the statute and frustrate the legislative mandate of expeditious and timebound adjudication”, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said.
Case Title: Channakeshava D.R v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 1901/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that 'serious and drastic measures' such as freezing a bank account in entirety cannot be resorted to in 'a casual and mechanical' manner since it paralyses the financial autonomy of a person.
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while partly allowing a writ petition filed by a practising advocate whose Karnataka Bank Account was frozen, based on a complaint registered at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, noted as below:
“..The primary object of directing debit freeze is to secure the alleged 'proceeds of crime' or to preserve the subject matter of investigation in relation to a cognizable offence. Therefore, such power must necessarily be exercised only when there exists a live and proximate nexus between the funds in the account and the alleged criminal activity, ordinarily backed by the registration of a First Information Report and supported by some tangible material indicating involvement in a cognizable offence”.
The court added that complete defreezing without the aforesaid valid grounds 'trenches upon the fundamental right to carry on profession and to deal with one's property'.
Renewal Of Arms Licence Can't Be Denied For Not Owning Agricultural Land: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Gregory F. Peres v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 11588 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that firearm license renewal applications cannot be rejected for the reason that the applicant does not have his own agricultural land.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum clarified that the licensing authority, under Section 15 of the Arms Act, 1959, cannot insist on 'extraneous reasons' such as lack of agricultural land for not renewing a firearm. The court, hence, set aside the order passed by the Police Commissioner declining to renew a 12-bore SBBL weapon license of a 60-year-old resident in Mangalore who has held a valid license for the past 30 years.
“...The licensing authority has thus imported a condition which is alien to the scheme of the Act and Rules. The requirement of ownership of agricultural land is neither a statutory precondition nor a permissible consideration. When the statute expressly mandates that lack of property shall not be a ground for refusal, the authority cannot indirectly achieve what is directly prohibited”, the court noted in the order dated April 23.
Case Title: Srinivasa S & ors. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No. 1190 of 2026 c/w WP Nos. 31956, 34040, 36589 of 2025 and WP No. 8003/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
Granting relief to several forest department officers who took part in 'Operation Cocoon' to apprehend the notorious forest bandit Veerappan in 2004, the Karnataka High Court has directed the State to consider sanctioning the withheld rewards to those who were part of the Special Task Force (STF) within 12 weeks.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that the 2015 order of the Forest Department, which restricted the cash payments to a few officers part of the STF during the demise of Veerappan, a sandalwood smuggler and brigand, was 'discriminatory'.
“…The Coordinate Bench, upon an elaborate examination of the factual matrix, has categorically held that once the names of the personnel, including those from the Forest Department, are found in the list of eligible beneficiaries prepared pursuant to the Government Order dated 08.07.2005, the State is estopped from denying such benefit on a specious plea that only a limited set of officers, who were present on the date when Koose Munisamy Veerappan was neutralized on 18.10.2004, would alone be entitled for the reward. The said contention of the State has been expressly rejected as being arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the very object of the Government Order…”.
Case Title: Evergreen Recyclekaro India Limited vs. Bharat Electronics Limited & MSTC Limited
Case No: WP No. 935 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a tender condition requiring the participating e-waste companies to have a recycling facility within the State cannot be deemed as 'discriminatory' when the concerned items to be processed are 'sensitive' electoral equipment like EVMs and VVPAT units that are decommissioned.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum opined that such a specific condition was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, but 'a regulatory safeguard rooted in environmental compliance' considering the sensitive nature of the material to be recycled.
“…The condition requiring in-state facilities is thus not a standalone commercial stipulation but a regulatory safeguard rooted in environmental governance. The disposal of EVMs and VVPATs is not merely a scrap disposal activity. It involves handling of sensitive electronic components, compliance with environmental norms and prevention of unauthorized reuse or data compromise. Therefore, the insistence on local facilities has a direct nexus with the object of ensuring safe, secure, and compliant disposal…”, the court noted in the order dated April 29.
Case Title: Darshan Srinivas v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7473 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
In a significant order upholding the right to a fair trial, the Karnataka High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) and the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) to act upon a complaint against 'media trial' filed by Kannada actor Darshan Srinivas, who is the prime accused in the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case.
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while allowing the writ petition in part, emphasised that the Ministries are under a statutory obligation to examine the complaint and see if the impugned broadcasts prima facie violated the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
On another note, the court did not take kindly to the counterproductive role that the media has been allegedly playing while Darshan's case is sub judice.
“…Freedom of speech is a cherished constitutional value; however, when it degenerates into media-driven adjudication, it ceases to be a safeguard of democracy and becomes a threat to it. The press is a watchdog, but when it assumes the role of judge, jury and executioner, the rule of law stands imperilled. Courts cannot permit the course of justice to be overshadowed by the glare of studio lights”, the high court laid down in unequivocal terms about media crossing the boundaries deliberately.
Case Title: Fayaz Khan v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 6438/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday [May 14] granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case, observing that the prosecution had failed to make out a 'prima facie' case under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, as no contraband was found within the petitioner's premises.
Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, punishes anyone who knowingly allows their premises, property, or vehicles to be used for committing a drug offense.
The court observed that finding the narcotic substance from the vehicles parked nearby the premises in question cannot be equated with the owner 'allowing the premises for drug use'.
The single judge bench of Justice M.G.S. Kamal allowed the criminal petition filed under Section 483 BNSS by the petitioner, who was arrayed as Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 55/2026 registered at Kollegala Rural Police Station, Chamarajanagar district, for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 25, and 27(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
“…Clearly, even according to the prosecution, no substance was found within the premises…There is considerable force in the submissions made by the petitioner…Section 25 of the NDPS Act…a bare perusal of it indicates that house, room, enclosure or space, etc. should be allowed to be used with the knowledge that it would be used for the commission of an offence…This ingredient is missing in the complaint. Merely because the contraband substance was found in vehicles parked near the premises, the respondent cannot invoke the provision of Section 25. The respondent police has failed to make out a prima facie case…”, the court noted in the order while granting bail to the 67-year-old petitioner residing in Kollegala.
Case Title: Younus Khan v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 14702 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
The Karnataka High Court on May 7 dismissed as not maintainable a writ petition challenging a circular issued by the Haj Committee of India demanding an additional ₹10,000/- towards differential airfare from Hajj pilgrims on account of the rising air fuel prices.
The single-judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty pointed out in the order that the petitioner had not registered himself as a Haj pilgrim for the current year. Similarly, the 54-year-old petitioner has not deposited any sum with the committee to travel for Hajj this year. In light of these circumstances, the writ petition would not be maintainable, the court added.
“…The demand for payment of differential amount of Rs.10,000/- raised vide Circular at Annexure-C dated 28.04.2026 is only from the pilgrims of Haj 2026 who have registered their names with the Haj Committee of India and have already paid/deposited the amount as aforesaid. Under the circumstances, petitioner cannot have any grievance as against the said circular, and therefore, he has no locus standi to question the same…”, the court noted in the order before dismissing the petition for not being maintainable.
Case Title: Sri Sheenappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 13836 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
The Karnataka High Court has on May 14 directed the State government and the Police department to remove deepfake and AI-manipulated content about the Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Dr. D Veerendra Heggade and his family members from all social media platforms, press and media outlets and URLs.
The single judge vacation bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar noted that the concerned authorities failed to take necessary action against such fabricated and morphed content despite a direction to the same effect in an earlier W.P. No. 19382/2023, pursuant to which a representation was made to the police authorities.
"Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to take necessary/effective/immediate steps to ensure that AI-generated, morphed, manipulated or fabricated images, video content depicting Dr. D. Veerendra Heggade, his family members, etc., to be taken down, removed, erased, effaced, deleted, etc., from all social media, URLs, press/media, social media platforms, etc., and press and other media including respondent Nos. 3 to 7 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Irfan Pasha v. National Investigation Agency
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by an accused in a UAPA case, who sought interim bail of three days to attend the Chehlam (40th day prayer ceremony) of his deceased sister, after having already been granted bail by the trial court to attend the 10th to 13th day rituals earlier.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Rai K and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum also noted the trial court's finding that there was another living male member in the family to carry out the 40th-day rituals of the deceased sister, and hence no cogent reason was made out to grant interim bail.
“Since the appellant has filed the present application to attend 40th day prayer ceremony of his deceased sister, that too, immediately after his earlier application being considered and granted by the Trial Court vide order dated 16.04.2026 to attend 10th to 13th day prayer ceremony, the present application has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court as there was no cogent reason assigned by the appellant as to why the similar application has to be entertained once again and as the trial of the case being at the fag end and that the offences alleged against the appellant being serious in nature”, the Division Bench noted in the order.
Case Title: Mr. Riyaz Ahmed v. Karnataka State By North Traffic P.S., Mangalore
Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No. 486 of 2018
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
Taking into account the accused-driver's act of shifting the injured victim to the hospital in his own car as a mitigating circumstance, the Karnataka High Court has modified the sentence awarded for rash and negligent driving resulting in death from one year to one day.
The single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda, acknowledging the driver's decision not to flee the spot after the accident, reduced his jail term from one year to jail term till the rising of the court while enhancing the compensation to the victim's family to Rs 1,00,000 lakh.
“…In the considered opinion of this Court, if the sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence under Section 304A IPC, if modified by directing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of ₹1,00,000/- which can be paid as compensation in a sum of ₹50,000/- each to the wife of deceased Anand Shetty, Mrs. Sumathi and Sri. Santhosh Kumar being the son, ends of justice would be met”, the court said while upholding the conviction and asking the accused to pay the fine amount in two instalments by the end of May and June respectively.
Case Title: M.B. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 15660 of 2026 (S-KSAT)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
The Karnataka High Court quashed the suspension of an executive engineer over the collapse of Bowring Hospital's compound wall in Bengaluru which claimed 7 lives in April, observing that the falling of the wall does not create "prima facie evidence of gross dereliction of duty" in absence of specific evidence against the officer.
The Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Dr Justice K. Manmadha Rao set aside M.B Nagaraj's suspension, an executive engineer of the Health & Family Welfare Department noting that the requirement of 'prima facie evidence against him' under clause Rule 10(1)(d) Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was non-existent in the present case.
“…The usage of the word 'him' would indicate that such evidence is required insofar as the officer who is proposed to be suspended and not the event itself”, the court noted in the order, emphasising the aforesaid requirement before accusing the jurisdictional officer for the fall of the compound wall.
Case Title: Cristian Soporuchukwu v. State of Karnataka
Case No.: Criminal Petition No.16286/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed the bail plea preferred by a Nigerian national for possessing commercial quantity of MDMA crystals, reasoning that the non-furnishing of grounds of arrest could not be utilised as 'a backdoor entry' to avail bail by superseding the twin conditions for bail laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The vacation bench of Justice V Srishananda observed in the order that non-compliance with furnishing the grounds of arrest as derived from Article 22(1) of the Constitution would entitle the accused to bail in ordinary offences; the same principle cannot be applied mechanically when the seized narcotics are commercial in quantity.
“…While on one hand, non-furnishing of grounds of arrest, or improper compliance of furnishing the grounds of arrest would be a good ground for grant of bail in all offences, on the other hand, where the accused is alleged of possessing commercial quantity of NDPS, would not be permitted to gain a back door entry in getting the bail on the ground of improper compliance of furnishing of grounds of arrest, especially when he has failed to make out a ground for grant of bail by resorting to Section 37 of the NDPS Act." the Court noted in its order dated May 7.
Case Title: Mahesh Shetty Thimarody v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 7376 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to social activitist Mahesh Shetty Thimarody accused of making allegedly derogatory remarks about a woman and implying that she had an illicit relationship with Rajya Sabha MP Veerendra Heggade, administrator (Dharma Adhikari) of Dharmasthala Temple.
The single judge bench of Justice R. Nataraj opined that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the crux of the case at hand relies on a purported telephonic conversation between the accused and one Mr. Prajwal.
The said call recording was allegedly later forwarded to the complainant woman's son by Prajwal himself. The son, disturbed by the insinuations allegedly made by Shetty on the call recording, informed his mother about the same. The complainant had alleged that the petitioner had thereby linked her to Veerendra Hegde and his brothers. She claimed that this outraged her modesty and generated enmity between groups.
Case Title: Sri Manjunatha N. v. State of Karnataka & Another
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 7025 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
The Karnataka High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a 52-year-old cinema theatre owner accused of stalking and sexually harassing a class 9 minor student.
The complainant alleged that the accused, who owns Shankar Talkies, made explicit threats over the phone that she and her friends should sleep with him; otherwise, he would stab her.
The single judge bench of Justice R Nataraj dismissed the petition filed by Manjunatha N, who has been charged by the Ramanagara Town Police for a slew of offences including those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Court noted in the order that the minor victim had previously complained about inappropriate touching and stalking by the theatre owner. Subsequent to the said complaint, the petitioner-accused allegedly escalated the harassment meted out to the student by sending a group of boys to threaten her with murder and acid attack.
Case Title: Sri Pradeepkumar v. State by Vidhana Soudha Police Station & Anr.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 29541 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
Cautioning against 'increasingly disturbing trend' of dragging lawyers into criminal proceedings, Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against a lawyer booked for forgery and offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, who had appeared for the co-accused in a matrimonial case and sought RTI information on the complainant.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna underscored that the independence of the Bar cannot be meddled with when the lawyers are merely discharging their professional obligations.
"Before parting with the matter, this Court considers it both necessary and appropriate to record its deep, disquiet and increasingly disturbing trend that has surfaced in recent times. This Court is encountering plethora of cases, wherein Advocates, who merely represent parties before Courts of law in the discharge of their professional obligations, are themselves being dragged into criminal proceedings and arrayed as accused. The only “fault” attributable to such Advocates, is that they appeared for their clients and articulated their cause before the concerned judicial forum.
Such tendency strikes at the very heart of independence of the bar, by necessary extension the purity of administration of justice itself. Advocates are officers of the Court, they function within the confines of professional duty, acting upon the instructions of their client and presenting their cause within the four corners of law. If every Advocate, merely by a reason of appearing for a litigant is exposed to criminal prosecution and trauma of investigative proceedings, the inevitable consequence would be a chilling and paralyzing effect upon fearless discharge of professional responsibilities. The majesty of legal profession cannot be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled litigants to wield criminal law as a weapon of intimidation against the members of the bar".
Case Title: Mr. Nixon v. State by Banaswadi Police Station & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 5622 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
Criticising the 'reckless' utilisation of police powers, the Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against a husband who was charged with abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 -despite the alleged victim (his wife) being alive.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna directed that the husband, languishing in jail for the past six months since October 2025, should be released immediately. The court has also directed for a departmental enquiry against the Investigating Officer for the 'reckless invocation' of penal provisions.
“Section 108 is neither ambiguous nor elastic. It stands anchored upon the un-denial prerequisite that, “if any person commits suicide” only then culpability for abetment would arise. In an astonishing display of recklessness or prosecutorial haste, the crime is registered for abetment to suicide and a charge sheet is also filed for the offence of abetment of suicide, an offence whose very foundation is actual commission of suicide…”, the court made harsh remarks about the investigating officer's conduct in the case.