LiveLaw Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up- August 17 - August 23, 2026
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 303 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 311NOMINAL INDEXSri G. Eshwaraiah S/o G. Narasimhulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 303. Sri K N Venugopal @ Venugopala Reddy and Another vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 304Hari Prakash SP & Ors.v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 305Shiva...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 303 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
NOMINAL INDEX
Sri G. Eshwaraiah S/o G. Narasimhulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
. Sri K N Venugopal @ Venugopala Reddy and Another vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
Hari Prakash SP & Ors.v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Shiva Shankarappa Sahukar v. Special Secretary & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
State of Karnataka v/s Pavitra Gowda & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
Naveen G. v. State of Karnataka & Anr..., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
KSRTC v. Pampapal & Other Connected Matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
B Nagendra v. Enforcement Directorate, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
Rakesh Kumar Sahu & Anr v.State of Karnataka., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
JUDGMENTS/ORDERS
Case Title: Sri G. Eshwaraiah S/o G. Narasimhulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Others
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 9560 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
Clarifying the rights of complainants in anti-corruption cases, the Karnataka High Court has recently held that the de-facto complainant who arranges 'trap money' cannot be left in the lurch until the conclusion of a prolonged trial to recover their funds. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 303]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing a plea, also iterated the comprehensive guidelines for the expeditious release and disposal of various categories of seized property, including cash, vehicles, and digital evidence, as laid down by the apex court and other High Courts.
“…the complainant is, beyond any pale of doubt, the rightful owner and lawful custodian of the trap money. Yet, the recognition of ownership, if divorced from possession, is but a barren declaration. A person may possess title in law, but if he is denied enjoyment of the property for years together without any legal necessity, such title becomes illusory and reduced to a mere abstraction. The law cannot content itself with acknowledging ownership while simultaneously permitting prolonged deprivation of its enjoyment”, the court laid down in the order.
Case Title: Sri K N Venugopal @ Venugopala Reddy and Another vs. The State of Karnataka and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 20839 of 2026 (LB-BMP)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
The Karnataka High Court has held that municipal authorities cannot impose the post-facto condition of executing a Relinquishment Deed for land without consideration, as a prerequisite for granting an Occupancy Certificate (OC), especially when such a condition was not imposed at the time of sanctioning the building license. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 304]
The single judge bench of Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad has allowed a plea filed by property owners who were asked by the Town Planning Authorities to relinquish over 656 square meters of land for road widening, without assuring any compensation, to secure the Occupancy Certificate for his completed building.
“…The petitioners' request for an Occupancy Certificate should be examined based on the conditions upon which the sanction is granted and the construction is completed. Indisputably, the relinquishment was not insisted upon while granting the building license and sanctioned plan, and this relinquishment is not insisted upon even when the Commencement Certificate is issued. Post-facto conditions cannot be insisted upon, and there must be a specific provision permitting the same if such conditions are to be sustained….”, the court laid down in the order.
Case Title: Hari Prakash SP & Ors.v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case Number: WP No. 805 of 2014 & WP No. 5693 of 2014
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Concerning the maintainability of writ petitions against private educational institutions, the Karnataka High Court has held that private, unaided institutions are not 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, and disputes regarding the payment of salary by such institutions are purely contractual matters lacking a 'public law element'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 305]
The single judge bench of Justice Ashok S. Kinagi dismissed two pleas filed by 89 non-teaching staff members of PES Pharmacy College and PES Institute of Technology (led by the Peoples Education Society), seeking a mandamus directing the management to pay salaries on par with Government educational institutions.
“…in the instant case… petitioners submitted that the respondent-University are bound by the Regulations of AICTE and UGC which provides for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staffs. Admittedly, the said university is a private university does not qualify as the State or Instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, making private employment disputes. Admittedly, the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents is in regard to the payment of salary. The said dispute is unmaintainable as the University is a private university and does not qualify as the State or Instrumentality of the State”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Shiva Shankarappa Sahukar v. Special Secretary & Anr.
Case No: WP 21376/2026
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 306
The Karnataka High Court has on August 18[ Tuesday] quashed the suspension of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) Chairman Shivasankarappa Sahukar, holding that the order was passed without the constitutionally mandated 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers under Articles 163 and 166. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 306]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj partly allowed the writ petition filed by Sahukar, who was suspended by the Governor following a resolution by KPSC members seeking his resignation.
“…The impugned suspension order dated 10.07.2026, bearing No. ... passed in purported exercise of power under Article 317(2) of the Constitution of India and communicated by respondent No. 2, is hereby quashed. As a consequence, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner as the Chairman of the KPSC within 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner, upon reinstatement, is entitled to function and officiate as the KPSC Chairman and is entitled to all consequential arrears and monetary benefits flowing from the service….”, the court noted initially in the order.
Case Title: State of Karnataka v/s Pavitra Gowda & Ors.
Case No: CRL.P No. 6820/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
Clarifying the applicable principles regarding the cross-examination of one's own witness under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Karnataka High Court has on August 18 [Tuesday] dismissed a petition by the State seeking to cross-examine the mother of the deceased in the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case involving actor Darshan. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 307]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while upholding the trial court's order, held that a witness cannot be subjected to cross-examination by the party that called her merely because of a 'stray answer' or 'inconvenient' testimony.
“…A witness does not become hostile merely because every syllable uttered by the said witness does not march to the drumbeat of the party who summoned him. Nor does Section 154 of the Evidence Act confer upon a party an automatic right to cross-examine its own witness whenever an answer turns inconvenient. Inconvenience is not hostility; discrepancy is not disloyalty; and an isolated departure is not necessarily an abandonment of the case. Something more must be demonstrated before the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Evidence Act can be invoked…”, the court opined.
Case Title: Naveen G. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 4666 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
The Karnataka High Court has held that allegations of a man persistently stalking a woman, threatening to circulate photographs of her and repeatedly sabotaging her marriage prospects, despite her refusal and an earlier suicide attempt, prima facie made out a case of abetment to suicide.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 308]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna refused to quash criminal proceedings against the accused, holding that the allegations, if read cumulatively, disclosed the ingredients of abetment requiring adjudication at trial.
It dismissed the petition seeing the quashing of proceedings under Sections 75 (sexual harassment), 78 (stalking), and 108 (abetment to suicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
“The case at hand cannot be characterised as one where the allegations are bereft of the ingredients of abetment. This is not a case of one angry word spoken in the heat of a moment. It is not a case of an isolated quarrel followed, after a considerable hiatus, by suicide. Nor is it a case where the accused is sought to be prosecuted merely because he happened to figure somewhere in the emotional landscape of the deceased. The allegations travel much farther”, the court said.
“…The complaint and the charge sheet, if read as a whole, prima facie depict the deceased being progressively cornered- her refusal allegedly ignored, her privacy threatened, her workplace invaded by pursuit, her matrimonial prospects repeatedly sabotaged and her apprehension that she would not be permitted to lead a life independent of the petitioner allegedly reinforced by his continued conduct. Whether every one of these allegations is true, is not for this Court to decide today…”, the court inferred further about the mens rea aspect of the petitioner-accused which is yet to be ascertained in the trial.
Case Title: KSRTC v. Pampapal & Other Connected Matter
Case No: MFA No. 6955/2018 (KSRTC vs. Pampapal), MFA No. 8569/2018 (Pampapal vs. KSRTC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
Interpreting the term 'homemaker', the Karnataka High Court has held that even highly qualified post-graduates who render services at home are entitled to compensation for loss of future earnings if they are not working elsewhere at the relevant time. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 309].
The Court rejected KSRTC's argument that the claimant, who holds a Master's Degree in Biotechnology and had worked as a Guest Lecturer, cannot be regarded as a homemaker.
“…Every woman who renders services to her family members at home is liable to be regarded as a 'HOMEMAKER' irrespective of the fact that such woman holds higher qualification either it is a Degree or Post Graduation or a Doctorate. Even a working woman or a professional can be considered to be a home maker so long as such woman renders services at home taking care and looking after the welfare of the family members.…”, the court held.
Case Title: B Nagendra v. Enforcement Directorate
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 12007/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
The Karnataka High Court on August 20 (Thursday) allowed a petition filed by B. Nagendra, a Cabinet Minister in the Karnataka Government, permanently relaxing a bail condition imposed on him in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case arising out of the alleged misappropriation of funds from the Valmiki Scheduled Castes Development Corporation. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 310]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna deleted the condition imposed by the trial court requiring Nagendra to obtain prior written permission before leaving Karnataka. The Court, however, made it clear that he cannot travel outside India without the permission of the concerned trial court or the High Court.
“….in light of him being a minister in the cabinet, and holding the portfolio…. would necessarily require him to travel beyond the shores of this jurisdiction. In light of the said circumstances, while observing that petitioner cannot travel without the permission of concerned court or this court beyond the shores of this nation, petitioner is free to travel within the country, as not permitting him to travel within the court would curtail his liberty and the post he is holding today …The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed…. Condition No. (c) imposed in the bail order dated 14.10.2024 in Crl. Misc. No. 7892/2024, which reads "The petitioner shall furnish his passport to the Court and shall not leave the State without obtaining written permission from the Court," stands deleted …”, the court said.
The condition deleted by the Court had required the petitioner to surrender his passport and not leave the State without obtaining written permission from the Court.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Sahu & Anr v.State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 4677/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
The Karnataka High Court has disposed of a petition filed by two Estate Officers of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in connection with a case concerning the disappearance of 21 stray dogs from the DRDO campus in Bengaluru, after noting that the investigation has been completed and the chargesheet filed. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 311]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna recorded that one of the petitioners, Rakesh Kumar Sahu, has been dropped from the array of accused in the chargesheet, while the second petitioner has been retained as an accused in the final report.
The Court was informed by the Additional Solicitor General and CGC Vinay Venugopal that the first petitioner did not figure in the chargesheet. When counsel for the complainant objected to his exclusion, the Court said that while it could not curtail the complainant's rights, the appropriate remedy would be to take recourse before the trial court.
At the outset, the Court took note of the submissions made by the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) and CGC Vinay Venugopal that the first petitioner does not figure in the chargesheet. When the counsel for the complainant raised objections regarding the dropping of the first petitioner, the Court remarked that though it can't curtail the rights of the complainant, the apt recourse would be before the trial court.
“…. The investigation stands complete and the chargesheet is filed before the concerned court. The chargesheet drops first petitioner from array of accused, retains the second petitioner and chargesheet is filed before concerned court on 2nd petitioner. The counsel for complainant submits that he has objections to dropping of first petitioner from the array of accused, therefore liberty is reserved to the complainant to take recourse to law if they are so aggrieved by the filing of the final report before the concerned court…The subject petition stands disposed of… Liberty is further reserved to these parties to knock the doors of this court in the event of need in the future”, the court accordingly noted in the order.