LiveLaw Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: August 10 - August 16, 2026
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 302NOMINAL INDEXSwamy & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287State of Karnataka v. JAR Gold Retail Private Limited & Connected Matters., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 288Srushti v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 289Dr. Vinuta B. & M/s Kids Clinic India Ltd. (Cloudnine Hospital) v. State of Karnataka &...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
NOMINAL INDEX
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
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.