Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 211 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 219Nominal IndexK.G. RAJANNA v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 211Ningaraj Gulappa V/S State and Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 212M/S.VINP DISTILLERIES AND SUGARS PVT. LTD V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 213NEW SPACE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD v. MR. PRABHAT SHARMA & ORS., 2026...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 211 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
Nominal Index
K.G. RAJANNA v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
Ningaraj Gulappa V/S State and Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 212
M/S.VINP DISTILLERIES AND SUGARS PVT. LTD V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
NEW SPACE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD v. MR. PRABHAT SHARMA & ORS., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
Bhuvan M v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
SMT REKHA v/s STATE BY AND ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
Smt. Savitha.R v. State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
Judgments/ Orders
Case title: K.G. RAJANNA v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
Case No: CRL.P 6443/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (June 22) said that grant of indiscriminate adjournments without any rhyme or reason is the reason which is clogging the courts. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 211]
The court made the oral observation while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings in a 15-year-old criminal case, after noting that the matter was adjourned by the concerned court on a plethora of occasions without any rhyme or reason.
The petitioner had sought quashing of a 2011 FIR for offences under IPC Sections 406(Criminal Breach of Trust),420(Cheating),468(forgery),471(Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) pending before the magistrate court in Bengaluru.
Case Title: Ningaraj Gulappa V/S State, Prashanth Kareepa Talavar V/S State, Nithin G.B. V/S State, Chandrashekar B V/S State
Case No: Crl P 1857 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
The Karnataka High Court last month denied bail to four persons who have been booked for making obscene posts on social media against actor Darshan's wife Vijaylakshmi Darshan. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 212]
Justice S Rachaiah dismissed the bail petitions in four separate orders and noted:
"No doubt, freedom of speech of expressions are guaranteed to its citizens under the Constitution of India. However, every such right has its reasonable restrictions. Exceeding such restrictions or invading the personal liberty of another person, certainly would be an offence and it would be dealt with in accordance with law.
It is needless to state that the Social Media as its responsibility to maintain decorum and also to instill the confidence in the minds of the citizens of this Country. The persons who are making comments on any issues have to maintain public peace and order. Making a baseless, false, frivolous and intimidating messages are required to be regulated by the Company itself, if not, Courts are required to secure the confidence of the citizens of this Country by way of interfering with such comments on the social media which violates the fundamental rights of any citizens of this Country".
Case Title: M/S.VINP DISTILLERIES AND SUGARS PVT. LTD V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.109133 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
The Karnataka High Court has directed various Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) to consider and decide a representation submitted by a distillery seeking enhancement of ethanol allocation for the Ethanol Supply Year (ESY) 2025–26. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 213]
The OMCs in question are Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
Justice N Nagaprasanna allowed the plea filed by M/S Vinp Distilleries and Sugar Private Limited, a dedicated ethanol manufacturer, challenging the reduced allocation of ethanol supply despite having established a dedicated ethanol plant.
Case Title: NEW SPACE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD v. MR. PRABHAT SHARMA & ORS
Case No: CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.5 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
The Karnataka High Court has held that a criminal contempt petition filed by a private party, without obtaining prior consent of the Advocate General of India, cannot proceed as a regular contempt petition, but may be treated as “information” and be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of whether any suo motu action should be initiated. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 214]
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T was dealing with a criminal contempt petition filed by New Space Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. against four accused persons alleging deliberate and wilful disobedience of a High Court order.
The company sought initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the accused, as well as to convict and sentence them to imprisonment.
An application was filed seeking recall of an earlier order passed in February that had overruled the office objection raised on maintainability of the petition.
The question before the Court was whether the Criminal Contempt of Court case filed seeking to take action against an alleged contemnor without the consent of the Advocate General is maintainable?
Case Title: Bhuvan M v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: WP No. 16889/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
The Central Zoo Authority (CZA) told the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday [June 24] that it has formed an expert committee to formulate SOPs and related protocols for zoo veterinarians, staff and other animal handlers, following the death of a trainee veterinarian who was mauled by a pregnant hippopotamus at Shivamogga Zoo recently. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 215]
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S Hemalekha which was hearing a PIL for formulating zoo safety protocols, observed that CZA has been taking sufficient steps to ensure safety in zoos.
“…The counsel (for CZA) has also handed over an office order dated 05.05.2026 setting out the constitution of an expert committee. R2 has already taken steps to formulated protocols and SOP…. Therefore, it is not apposite to issue any directions by the court…Disposed”, the court noted in the order.
The PIL, filed by Bhuvan M who claims to be a wildlife conservationist, emphasised that 17 such fatal incidents have occurred in animal enclosures of the zoos since 2016. The petitioner submitted that newspaper reports annexed to the petition indicate a plethora of such incidents.
Case Title: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Crl.P. No. 7003/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
Noting that animals are not 'mere chattels existing solely for human utility' and every act of cruelty against them is a 'blemish upon the collective human conscience', the Karnataka High Court has quashed a trial court order directing the return of nine rescued dogs to their original owner, facing allegations of cruelty, repeated beatings, and sexual abuse. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 216]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while quashing the magistrate's order dated April 25, directed that the dogs- including six Golden Retrievers and three Shih Tzus- currently in the custody of animal welfare organizations, shall continue to remain there pending trial and completion of investigation.
“…The measure of a civilised society is often reflected not merely by how it treats its humans but as to how it extends mercy and justice to voiceless creatures that inhabits this shared world. Therefore, every act of cruelty against an animal is not merely an injury to a sentient being, but a blemish upon the collective human conscience... Protection of animal life is not therefore charity... it is an affirmation of constitutional morality and the recognition that the arc of justice must extend to even those who can't knock at the doors of the court..”, the court underscored in its order today.
The impugned order 'shocks the conscience of the court', the single judge bench opined. The Court orally noted that the visuals depicted the owner of the dogs repeatedly beating every dog and has treated those dogs like chattels that he can deal with as and how he wants.
"… Before I say Omega to this order, it would not be inept to refer that though animals are bereft of human speech, they are not bereft of sentience, suffering and the capacity to experience pain. The law, in its civilisational wisdom, has long ceased to view animals as mere chattels existing solely for human utility. The law now recognises animals also to be living beings entitled to dignity, compassion and protection from cruelty”, the court continued.
Case Title: Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 513 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a 28-year-old man accused of marrying a 17-year-old girl and indulging in sexual relations with her on the ground that the girl had worldly knowledge about the consequences of her actions. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 217]
The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty noted in the order that the accused and the survivor were in love and got married at a temple and lived together for a considerable duration.
“…It appears that the victim and the petitioner who were in love got married in a temple and lived together for a considerable period of time in a rented house and had consensual sex. The victim girl was aged about 17 years as on the said date and therefore she had the worldly knowledge about the consequences of her act…”, the court said.
The court added that Trial in the case is yet to commence and allegations against him will have to be proved in a full-fledged trial.
Karnataka High Court Cancels Vachanananda Swami's Anticipatory Bail In POCSO Case
Case title: SMT REKHA v/s STATE BY AND ANOTHER
Case No: CRL.P 7944/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (June 25) cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by a sessions court to Vachanananda Swami booked in a POCSO case over allegations of sodomy, remarking that it was troubled by the manner in which bail was granted. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 218]
The court was hearing the complainant's plea challenging Sessions Court's May 2 order granting anticipatory bail to Vachanananda Swamiji who has been booked for offences under Sections 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of POCSO Act. In the interim, the plea sought a stay on the May 2 order.
Earlier this week the court had orally remarked that it will cancel Vachanananda's anticipatory bail.
Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order dictated:
"The petitioner is before the court calling in question an anticipatory bail granted to respondent 2...The learned counsel for respondent 2 now submits that police have filed a chargesheet after investigation. Though in law once an anticipatory bail is granted it would run even after filing of chargesheet, this court is not examining whether filing of chargesheet would obliterated anticipatory bail granted. No it is not.
The manner in which the pre-arrest bail is granted is what troubles this court as one week prior to registration of complaint itself a bail is granted under Sections 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of POCSO Act. Therefore going to the offence, and manner in which it is what leads to obliteration of the subject order, and not the mere fact of filing of the chargesheet. In that light I deem it appropriate to obliterate this order and reserve liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate court to seek regular bail".
Case Name: Smt. Savitha.R v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No. : WP No. 3765 of 2022 (S-KSAT)
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Justice S.G.Pandit and Justice Rajesh Rai K held that a substituted amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which includes married daughters in the definition of “family,” is retrospective in effect and entitles the married daughter to consideration for compassionate appointment.
It was observed by the Co-ordinate Bench that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but eligible dependents of a deceased government servant are entitled to be considered under the applicable compassionate appointment scheme. It was noted that under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, married daughters were initially excluded from the definition of dependents eligible for compassionate appointment.