Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 38 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 53Nominal IndexMohan v/s The State of Karnataka and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 38 Mr Irfan Nasir @ Irfi v/s The NIA 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 39The Registrar General v/s Jayban Adivasi @ Jay Singh and Others and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 40X v/s Y 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 41Sri Venkataiah v/s The State of Karnataka & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 42NIA v/s...
Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 38 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
Nominal Index
Mohan v/s The State of Karnataka and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
Mr Irfan Nasir @ Irfi v/s The NIA 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
The Registrar General v/s Jayban Adivasi @ Jay Singh and Others and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
X v/s Y 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
Sri Venkataiah v/s The State of Karnataka & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
NIA v/s Md. Shahbaz @ Zulfikar @ Guddu and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
Sandeep and Others v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
Mukram Khan & Anr. v/s The State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
IIFL Finance Ltd. v/s State of Karnataka & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
Devaraj HD v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
Kallalinga E Hoogar v/s Sri Siddaramaiah and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
Mohammed Manik Hussain @ Mohammed Manik v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 49
State of Karnataka v/s Smt. Prema & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 50
Mrs. Estrida Lucy Janet Vaz & Others v/s NIL 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 51
Christopher Charles Kamolins v/s Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 52
Gowrishankar KS v/s The Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
Judgments/Orders
Case title: Mohan v/s The State of Karnataka and batch
WRIT PETITION NO. 107749 OF 2025 (CS –RES) and connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
The Karnataka High Court has held that even though State Cooperative Societies Act, State Souharda Sahakari Act and The Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act are cognate laws, delegation for voting under the Acts would not be hit by bar of repeat voting under Section 21 State Cooperative Societies Act.
The petitions raised a challenge to the nomination of delegates by certain cooperative societies to participate in elections of Canara District Central Cooperative Bank Limited. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 6th respondent, under different statutory enactments has already exercised its right of delegation on two prior occasions and that the present nomination constitutes a third delegation, thereby infringing the statutory embargo engrafted in Section 21 of the Karnataka State Cooperative Societies Act.
Case title: Mr Irfan Nasir @ Irfi v/s The NIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1015 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
The Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order denying bail to a man accused of being member of a terrorist gang and being part of criminal conspiracy to wage war against Government of Syria, observing that the mandate of furnishing written grounds of arrest as per Supreme Court's Pankaj Bansal judgment applies prospectively.
In doing so the court said that the accused who was arrested in 2020, prior to Pankaj Bansal judgment cannot seek this ground to claim that the arrest was illegal.
Case title: The Registrar General v/s Jayban Adivasi @ Jay Singh and Others and batch
Crl. A. Nos. 2216/2024 & 2246/2024, Crl.R.C.No.2/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
The Karnataka High Court upheld a 2024 trial court order imposing death penalty on three men convicted for gang rape and murder of a minor girl, observing that the offence was barbaric and such acts must be curbed with iron hands.
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T in its 176 page order observed:
"Having considered all these factors into consideration and materials available on record, even this Court has to strike balance between mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances. No doubt, the accused persons are young aged and the same cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion that they could be imprisoned for life and age is not a determinative factor by itself and except this circumstance, there is no other mitigating circumstances. The accused persons inhumanely in a brutal manner subjected the victim girl, who is aged about 7 years and 7 months for continuous sexual act one by one, without caring the life of the victim and the same is nothing but a barbaric act of gang rape..."
Case title: X v/s Y
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201037 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
The Karnataka High Court rejected a man's plea seeking DNA test of the child born to his wife suspecting the child's paternity on the ground that they did not cohabit for a long time.
In doing so the court said that DNA test on paternity of a child can't be ordered as a matter of course, finding that the petitioner did not dispute that he had cohabited with the wife and also not disputed their marital status.
The marriage between petitioner husband and respondent wife was solemnized on 25.05.2022; a child was born who is around 1 years old. Subsequently, due to matrimonial dispute, the wife filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance.
Case title: Sri Venkataiah v/s The State of Karnataka & Others
WRIT PETITION NO.13313 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
The Karnataka High Court has held that a gift deed through which a senior citizen transfers his property to the transferee need not contain an "express recital" of maintenance of the senior citizen, to claim that such transfer is void under Section 23 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
In doing so the court held that maintenance of senior citizen under Section 23 is implicit wherein the provision seeks to protect the trusting nature of senior citizens, who may be financially dependent on children and rely on trust and moral expectations.
Karnataka High Court Cancels Bail Of 7 Booked For Radicalizing Youth In Ballari ISIS Module Case
Case title: NIA v/s Md. Shahbaz @ Zulfikar @ Guddu and batch
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.1023, 858, 927 & 932 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
The Karnataka High Court cancelled bail granted to seven men accused of being involved with the Ballari ISIS module, charged under the UAPA for allegedly recruiting and radicalization of vulnerable youth to carry out terrorist activities in India, remarking that the alleged procedural lapse was raised belatedly.
The court was hearing four criminal appeals filed by NIA challenging Special Court's orders dated 08.04.2025, 11.03.2025 and 14.03.2025 granting bail to respondent/accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 observing that grounds of arrest were not furnished to the accused in writing who arrested in 2023.
Case title: Sandeep and Others v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1994/2019, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1918/2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
Upholding the murder conviction and life sentence of 4 men, the Karnataka High Court rejected their contention that the deceased's wife–an eye witness to the incident, had already seen the photographs of the accused persons purportedly published in newspapers prior to Test Identification Parade.
In doing so the court said that there was no specific question put to the wife during the cross examination that prior to TIP the photos of the accused were published in the media.
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T in its order said:
"Having considered this evidence, it is very clear that she has narrated how an incident has taken place and she is an eye witness to the incident and immediately after the death of her husband, she gave the statement between 10.30 to 11.30 p.m. and narrated each of overt act of the accused persons and also categorically given the description of accused Nos.1 to 3 that two were tall and one was short and the person who was short itself assaulted her and the fact that she also sustained injury is not in dispute and wound certificate is also produced.Hence, it is clear that she is an eye witness to the incident".
Case title: Mukram Khan & Anr. v/s The State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201252 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
The Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi bench) refused to quash an FIR against Congress leader Mukram Khan accused of making a speech, which had outraged the religious feelings of Hindu community, by allegedly stating that "he will cut them into pieces" in respect of the 2022 Hijab incident.
The court was hearing a plea by Khan and his son Dr. Soyab Khan seeking quashing of an FIR under IPC Sections 298 (Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), 295(A) (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) and 212(harbouring offender) r/w Section 34 (common intention).
Case title: IIFL Finance Ltd. v/s State of Karnataka & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 31057 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
The Karnataka High Court has observed that a financial company offering loan based on pledged stolen gold cannot defeat the lawful title of the owner whose gold is stolen or impede investigation into FIR pertaining to such alleged acts.
The court was hearing a plea by IIFL Finance Limited seeking to quash a notice issued under Section 94 (Summons to produce document or other thing) BNSS by the police in relation to theft of gold which had been pledged by the accused to the petitioner for securing a loan.
Case title: Devaraj HD v/s State of Karnataka
CRL.P 8070/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (February 12) quashed charge of Bigamy (Section 494 IPC) against the alleged second wife of a man, in a complaint filed by the first wife of the husband reiterating that such a spouse cannot be dragged into the case specially where the allegations stems from a suspicion.
The court was hearing a petition moved by a husband and his family as well as his alleged second wife, seeking quashing of an FIR filed on the complaint of the complainant stated to be the first wife of the petitioner. The FIR was lodged under Sections 498A(cruelty), 323(voluntarily causing simple hurt), 494(bigamy), 417(punishment for cheating), 506(criminal intimidation), 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In June last year the court had stayed the probe.
Case title: Kallalinga E Hoogar v/s Sri Siddaramaiah and Others
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2100 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea making allegations of corruption against Chief Minister Siddaramiah, Deputy CM DK Shivakumar and seeking registration of criminal proceedings observing that the petitioner had added every person holding office and if the plea is permitted it would be abuse of law.
The court was hearing a petition moved by National president of Bhrastachar Virodha Party and a former employee of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, against Chief Minister Siddaramiah, Deputy CM DK Shivakumar and various MLAs making allegations of corruption against them.
Case title: Mohammed Manik Hussain @ Mohammed Manik v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7711/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 49
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to a Bangladeshi national accused of forging an Indian passport by using a fake Aadhar Card after noting that the grounds of arrest had not been provided to the petitioner.
The court was hearing the bail plea by a Bangladeshi national accused of offences under Section 319(Cheating by personation), 336(3)(Forgery), 340(Forged document or electronic record and using it as genuine) BNS; Section 12-1A(a)(b) (foreign national obtaining passport by suppressing information of his nationality or holds a forged passport or any travel document) Passport Act and Section 14-A (Penalty for entry in restricted areas, etc) and 14-B (Penalty for using forged passport) of Foreigners Act.
Case title: State of Karnataka v/s Smt. Prema & Anr.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.141 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 50
The Karnataka High Court modified a woman's conviction from voluntarily causing grievous hurt to voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous, after noting that a quarrel had suddenly arisen between her and her female neighbour over drying of clothes which was a "trivial issue".
The court modified the conviction to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapons or means) which is punished with imprisonment of a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both. In contrast to this, punishment for offence under Section 325 is imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and fine.
Case title: Mrs. Estrida Lucy Janet Vaz & Others v/s NIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3127 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 51
The Karnataka High Court has held where a son dies intestate leaving behind wife and children–being direct lineal descendants, his mother would not have a right to estate/inheritance under the Indian Succession Act.
The court was hearing an appeal challenging a trial court order which had dismissed a family's plea seeking issuance of succession certificate of the deceased member. The trial court had dismissed the plea of the deceased's wife and children taking note of the claim of the deceased's mother.
Justice Jyoti M in her order observed that the deceased died died intestate, and he is survived by his wife and children as his lineal descendants, whereas the Trial Court refused the succession certificate on the mistaken premise that the deceased's mother's status as a legal heir precluded the applicant's claim.
Case title: Christopher Charles Kamolins v/s Union of India
WRIT PETITION NO. 26412 OF 2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 52
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the 'Leave India' notice issued to an Australian national who was residing on an Employment Visa, noting that the visa was obtained via misrepresentation as no process for recruiting local talent for the post was conducted.
It held that the Leave India notice was not vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner, as a foreign national residing on a contractual visa obtained through misrepresentation, does not enjoy the same degree of procedural protection as a citizen or a long-term resident seeking citizenship.
Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL To Disband Tatkal, Emergency Quota Schemes For Rail Tickets
Case title: Gowrishankar KS v/s The Union of India
WP 3787/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (February 13) dismissed a PIL seeking to disband tatkal and emergency quota schemes for railway tickets, stated to be implemented without legislative backing.
When the matter was called, a division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
The PIL prayed for disbanding existing Tatkal and Emergency Quota schemes implemented through executive orders without any legislative backing. In lieu of these schemes the petition sought direction to the Union of India to table schemes before the Parliament in accordance with Section 60 and 199 of Railways Act in order to ensure proper legislative compliance.