Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 442 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 462NOMINAL INDEXSRI. B.R. RAMAKRISHNA VS UNION OF INDIA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 442M. PRASANNA KUMAR VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 443S. Nithyananda v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 444Yaseer Arafat & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 445Dr. Shantha Hosamani v. State...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 442 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 462
NOMINAL INDEX
SRI. B.R. RAMAKRISHNA VS UNION OF INDIA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 442
M. PRASANNA KUMAR VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 443
S. Nithyananda v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 444
Yaseer Arafat & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 445
Dr. Shantha Hosamani v. State of Karnataka,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 446
Shri Nadeem Ur Rehman v. State of Karnataka & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 447
SRI PRAFUL BALAKRISHNA PATIL VS STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 448
MR. KALLAPPA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 449
MAHANTESH ANGADI S/O BASAVARAJ, VS STATE OF KARNATAKA,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 450
SHRI ALLABHAKSHA M. MAKANDAR VS STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 451
Sri Sandeep Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 452
MAHESH VS SOMASHEKHAR KR & ANOTHER , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 453
MR VIVEK M NARAYAN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 434
X v/s Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 454
SRI SUBBAIAH VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 455
S P SHANTHI PRASAD VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 456
SRI RAMANJALU VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 457
Abhay Shee v. State of Karnataka & Anr,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 458
A. Sathyanarayana Swamy v. The High Court of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 459
Mr. Alkesh Vinod Shah & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (and connected matter), 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 460
State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Yogesh K & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 461
SRI RUDRAPPA S/O. GURULINGAPPA NAVALAGI & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 462
JUDGMENTS/ORDERS
Case Title: SRI. B.R. RAMAKRISHNA VS UNION OF INDIA
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.10451 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 442
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, which impose restrictions on construction within prohibited and regulated areas surrounding centrally protected monuments.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 442]
The Court said that the provisions classifying regulated and prohibited areas from the boundary of protected monuments under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act) are not unreasonable and ambiguous, as they further the constitutional mandate of Article 49 (state directive to protect monuments). The Court also ruled that regulation of land utilisation under the Act does not amount to expropriation, and thus compensation cannot be claimed.
Case Title : M. PRASANNA KUMAR VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO.633 OF 2020
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 443
The Karnataka High Court has held that an advocate who continues to practice in Courts without clearing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) within the mandatory two-year period faces criminal liability under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 45 of the Advocates Act, 1961.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 443]
The Court further directed the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) to devise a mechanism which would alert the Council automatically, after the expiry of the two-year period, of such persons who continue to practice illegally.
Justice H.P. Sandesh held that the existence of a disciplinary mechanism under the Advocates Act, 1961, does not exclude the jurisdiction of criminal courts to examine conduct that independently satisfies the ingredients of a criminal offence.
Case Title : S. Nithyananda v. State of Karnataka
Case Number : Crl. Petition 15746/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 444
The Karnataka High Court has recently granted bail to S. Nithyananda-the proprietor of M/s N Square Enterprises-who was arrested under the newly enacted Health Security and National Security Cess (HSNS) Act, 202 for allegedly evading cess amounting to around 42 crores.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 444]
The single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty granted him bail on October 17 [Saturday].
The accused had been in judicial custody since August 20, 2026, following a crackdown by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Bengaluru Zonal Unit at his factory in Nelamangala, and his residence in Sheshadripuram. According to DGGI, the search of the factory led to the recovery of six undeclared vertical Forms, Fill and Seal (FFS) pouch packing machines, alongside large quantities of raw materials, packaging materials, and finished pan masala goods.
Case Title : Yaseer Arafat & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr
Case Number : Criminal Petition 671/2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 445
Clarifying the ambit of right to dissent, the Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against 13 persons for allegedly painting slogans on a public wall that criticized a Supreme Court judgment. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 445]
The single judge bench of Justice H.P Sandesh held that merely expressing dissatisfaction with a verdict does not amount to sedition or promoting disharmony.
“…it appears that a voice is raised with regard to judgment of the Apex Court, that too, word used is only denial of justice and raise the voice for justice. When such being the case, it will not attract ingredients of offence under Sections 153A and 295A of IPC, the Court has to take note of discussion made by the Apex Court in the judgment [of Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra And Another [2024]]… Though the said slogans are against dissatisfaction of the judgment of the Apex Court, while invoking Section 153A, there must be ingredient of sedition against the State…”, the court said.
The court was hearing a plea by the accused seeking the quashment of FIR registered at the Mangalore South Police Station in 2019 and further criminal proceedings. The FIR was lodged for offences punishable under Sections 153A (promoting enmity), 295A (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, a/w Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1951.
Case Title : Dr. Shantha Hosamani v. State of Karnataka
Case Number : Criminal Petition No. 14766 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 446
Taking a strict stance, Karnataka High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Dr. Shantha Hosamani, a member of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC), who is accused of receiving illegal gratification to favour a candidate in the KAS examination interview.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 446]
The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, while dismissing the petition, observed that the records submitted by the prosecution 'prima facie' indicated that the accused misused her office for unlawful gain.
'Steering Wheel Not A Plaything': Karnataka High Court Sustains Homicide Charge Against Father For Handing Car Keys To Minor Son
Case Title : Shri Nadeem Ur Rehman v. State of Karnataka & Anr
Case Number : Criminal Petition No. 10711 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 447
Coming down heavily on parents letting juveniles drive vehicles illegally, the Karnataka High Court has refused to discharge a father from charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, after his 14-year-old son caused a fatal accident. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 447]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that a parent who knowingly hands over the keys to an underage child cannot seek reprieve from criminal consequences, when an untoward incident happens.
“…If a parent consciously places a motor vehicle in the hands of a 14-year-old child, knowing fully well that the child is legally incompetent and manifestly unequipped to drive it upon a public road, the question whether such conduct carries with it the requisite knowledge of likely fatal consequences cannot be foreclosed at the threshold…The alleged positive act is the handing over of the keys and permitting the minor to drive; the alleged knowledge must be gathered from that act, its surrounding circumstances and, importantly, the allegation that such permission had granted repeatedly. Whether this crosses the juridical threshold from gross negligence into culpable homicide is ultimately a matter that must abide the evidence”, the court observed.
Case Title : SRI PRAFUL BALAKRISHNA PATIL VS STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102226 OF 2026 (438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 448
The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to a "rowdy-sheeter" accused of several offences including attempt to murder, observing that prima facie there were no reasonable and sufficient grounds at this stage to believe that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged offences.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 448]
Justice Venkatesh Naik T was hearing a criminal petition filed by Praful Balakrishna Patil who was accused of, along with other, assaulting the complainant. When the complainant managed to escape, Patil allegedly fired a bullet at him from his revolver but it did not hit the complainant. Subsequently an FIR was registered against the accused, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No. 1, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 126(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act.
Case Title : MR. KALLAPPA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case Number : CRL.P. No. 102409 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 449
The Karnataka High Court has granted regular bail to a journalist, arrested in an extortion and abduction case, where the accused along with co-accused allegedly impersonated police officers, planted marijuana, and extorted money from the complainant. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 449]
Justice Venkatesh Naik T took into account several factors, including the recovery of extorted money, severity of punishment and chances of the petitioner-accused to escape, while allowing the criminal petition.
“On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the accused persons kidnapped the de facto complainant on the pretext that they would register a case and also on the premise that ganja had been placed in his car. The statement of objections and the material available on record clearly demonstrate that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner has been in judicial custody. Since the recovery has already been effected, his further detention in judicial custody is not necessary,” the Court said.
Case Title : MAHANTESH ANGADI S/O BASAVARAJ, VS STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 106961 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 450
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order rejecting parole extension for a convict incarcerated for 18 and a half years in a murder case, directing the authorities to consider his application for 30-day parole extension.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 450]
Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed that the Sections 640 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Service Manual allows grant of general parole for 30 days, which can be extended for another 60 days, while Section 642 of the Act mandates a prisoner to apply for an extension 10 days before the last day of general parole.
The case arose from a suo motu complaint lodged by a Police Inspector of Hunsur Town Police Station on February 26, 2023. Acting on information about the alleged illegal sale of beef without a licence or permission, the police conducted raids at several shops and godowns in Shabbeer Nagar.
Dealer Not Responsible For Substandard Quality Of Fertilizer In Sealed Bag: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR
Case Title : SHRI ALLABHAKSHA M. MAKANDAR VS STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100297 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 451
The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a dealer and supplier of fertiliser, observing that he was not responsible for production of “substandard quality” fertilisers contained in the sealed bags.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 451]
Justice Venkatesh Naik T, while allowing the criminal petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the supplier, placed reliance on the Sanjay Gowda v. State of Karnataka (2016) ruling. In this 2016 ruling, it was held that only the officer appointed for compliance with the Fertiliser (Control) Order in a company can be proceeded against for any violation, and not any other officer of the company.
Case Title : Sri Sandeep Kumar v. State of Karnataka
Case Number : Criminal Petition No. 13010 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 452
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against the administrator of an X (formerly Twitter) account, for allegedly promoting communal disharmony by sharing a news report about an incident of stalking in Puttur. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 452]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna also censured the police for registering multiple FIRs on the same incident. The court has now issued a slew of guidelines to prevent the mechanical registration of crimes arising from social media posts.
“…. Since crime after crime is registered by the very Police Station on an incident of reporting of a particular act, it is shocking as to how for the asking, the crimes are registered by the jurisdictional police on the same incident without there being any ingredient of crime and without holding any preliminary inquiry… The material placed on record raises two interconnected concerns: the mechanical registration of successive crimes arising from the same incident or social media expression, and the indiscriminate exercise of police powers without adherence to statutory and constitutional safeguards.”, the court noted, by stating that the actions of the police were in contravention of apex court judgments in Satender Kumar Antil and Nalla Balu.
Case Title: MAHESH VS SOMASHEKHAR KR & ANOTHER
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1011/2021 (MV-I
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 453
The Karnataka High Court has held that the financial incapacity or lack of personal assets of an offending vehicle owner cannot be a ground to deny the equitable doctrine of “Pay and Recover” to an innocent third-party victim of a motor accident.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 453]
“The legal proposition in this regard is well settled: even where a fundamental breach of policy conditions is established, such as the rider lacking a valid and effective driving license, the insurer is required in law to satisfy the award in favor of the third party in the first instance, with liberty to recover the amount so paid from the owner,” the Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan said.
The Bench further added, “In our opinion, the alleged financial standing or lack of personal assets of the vehicle owner cannot alter this statutory obligation or disentitle the third-party victim from securing the fruits of the award.”
Case Title : MR VIVEK M NARAYAN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3999 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 454
The Karnataka High Court has held that mere pendency of a partition suit does not, by itself, show that any subsequent criminal allegations are false or manufactured to give the dispute a criminal colour.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 454]
Consequently, Justice Suraj Govindaraj refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, which were initiated on a complaint registered by his paternal uncle alleging assault.
“The pendency of the partition suit may show that there is a pre-existing family dispute between the parties. However, the mere existence of such a dispute does not mean that every subsequent criminal allegation is necessarily false or has been given a criminal colour,” the Court observed.
Case Title : SRI SUBBAIAH VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 21921 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 455
The Karnataka High Court has held that an Inquest Report prepared under Section 174 CrPC (corresponding to Section 194 BNSS) is merely a fact-finding report meant to aid the investigation and does not conclude the investigative process or substitute a final report.
Consequently, Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the police to complete the probe and file final report before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Sakleshpura.
Referring to the landmark Madras High Court ruling in Manohari vs District Superintendent of Police & others (2018), the Court said,
“Inquest Report prepared under Section 174 of the CrPC is not a final report. It merely forms part of the materials collected during the course of investigation. Whether the First Information Report is registered before or after the preparation of the Inquest Report would not affect its validity. The Inquest Report is only a fact-finding report intended to ascertain the apparent cause of death and does not conclude the investigation.The judgment further makes it clear that the report submitted by the Executive Magistrate pursuant to the inquest is only intended to aid the investigation conducted by the police.”
Case Title : S P SHANTHI PRASAD VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1737 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 456
he Karnataka High Court has held that the mere use of abusive or intemperate language would not, by itself, constitute the offence of intentional insult or criminal intimidation in the absence of specific statutory ingredients.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 456]
Justice Suraj Govindaraj was hearing a criminal petition filed by a man, seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him by his neighbour following a dispute over boundary and cattle trespass. He has been accused of the offences under Sections 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) BNS.
Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in B.V. Ram Kumar vs. State of Telangana (2025), the Court said, “The Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to Fiona Shrikhande and Mohd. Wajid, has reiterated that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence would not, by itself, constitute intentional insult within the meaning of the provision.”
Case Title : SRI RAMANJALU VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3658 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 457
The Karnataka High Court has held that a motor vehicle driven recklessly toward a person is capable of becoming an “instrument of death” and the fact that victim survived does not dilute the gravity of the act or efface the criminality.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 457]
In doing so the court dismissed a plea to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner booked for attempt to murder after he allegedly ran over his vehicle on a police constable during a drunken-driving check.
“The law does not countenance a motor vehicle being converted into an instrument of intimidation or violence against those entrusted with its enforcement. The authority of a public servant lawfully discharging his duty cannot be made to yield to the arrogance of an individual who considers himself beyond the reach of the law,” Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed.
Case Title : Abhay Shee v. State of Karnataka & Anr
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 24177 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 458
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash a criminal case against a 22-year-old man, who was accused of sending an email threat to the Bengaluru Police Commissioner, claiming to be from the banned terrorist organisation Jaish-e-Mohammed.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 458]
In the e-mail, the accused had allegedly warned the Commissioner of bomb blasts at the Kempegowda International Airport and several shopping malls. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 427]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna opined that the allegations were not merely about an empty threat using the credentials of another person.
“…The alleged object of implicating another person does not, by itself, render the conduct any less serious. A false threat of terrorism is not rendered innocuous merely because the person issuing it never intended to execute the threatened act…”, the court opined.
Case Title : A. Sathyanarayana Swamy v. The High Court of Karnataka & Ors
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 28070 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 459
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition seeking access to the archived audio-visual recordings of court proceedings, holding that litigants do not have an absolute right to copies of recordings unless specifically ordered by a Court. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 459]
The single judge bench of Justice CM Poonacha, referring to Rule 8 (Storage and Access) and Rule 10 (Disclaimers, Prohibitions and Restrictions) of Karnataka Rules on Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, 2021, held as below:
“…It is clear from combined reading of Rule 8 and Rule 10 of the Rules, that the same do not in any manner provide a right to the petitioner to seek for copies of the said recording unless the same is specifically ordered by the Court. In the absence of any right vested with the petitioner, the question of the petitioner assailing the rejection of his request for copies does not arise…', the Court observed.
Case Title : Mr. Alkesh Vinod Shah & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (and connected matter)
Case Number : Criminal Petition No. 8419 of 2025 c/w Criminal Petition No. 4215 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 460
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against the partners and directors of Shalimar Agarbatti Company, holding that a purely civil dispute arising from a Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) cannot be given a criminal colour. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 460]
The single-judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the complainant, a family member involved in the business dispute, was already challenging the validity of the BTA before an arbitrator while simultaneously alleging that the accused had committed cheating and forgery in connection with the same agreement.
“It is no doubt true that in a given circumstance an incident may give rise to a civil wrong as well as criminal law. This is not one such case. This is a case where criminal law is being set into motion on a business arising out of Business Transfer Agreement and monetary claims, all of which are pending before the Arbitrator not today, but for the last 8 years,” the Court observed.
Case Title : State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Yogesh K & Anr.
Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2025 (S-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 461
The Karnataka High Court has held that a party cannot invoke mediation process as a ruse to secure adjournments and delay proceedings by deliberately failing to participate. It thus dismissed the plea to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner in a dowry harassment case.[ Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 461]
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that once the parties consent to refer a dispute to mediation, they are duty-bound to participate in the proceedings sincerely and diligently. The petitioner cannot thereafter frustrate the process by remaining absent, the Court said.
“Though the petitioner appeared before the mediator on the first occasion, the petitioner remained absent on the subsequent two occasions, despite the respondent being present. This repeated absence, without any satisfactory explanation, makes it evident that the petitioner did not intend to pursue the mediation process in good faith,” the Court observed.
Case Title : SRI RUDRAPPA S/O. GURULINGAPPA NAVALAGI & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102564 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 462
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act against two men who were running a lodge over allegations of carrying prostitution at the premises, after noting that the raiding party was not accompanied by women as mandated by the provisions.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 462]
Consequently, Justice Venkatesh Naik T allowed the criminal petition filed by the two men.
Referring to several rulings of Karnataka High Court, including Mr. Praveen Kumar M.S. vs State of Karnataka, the Court said that provisions of Section 15(2) of the ITP Act are mandatory in nature as per which the raiding party shall accompanied by a women and another pancha (witness) shall be a person from the locality.