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) 311]

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.

The Court had earlier granted interim relaxation of the condition after Nagendra was inducted into the State Cabinet and given a ministerial portfolio. Making the relaxation permanent, the Court noted that the circumstances had changed since the grant of bail, as his responsibilities as a Cabinet Minister could require him to travel outside Karnataka.

When the matter was taken up today, Senior Counsel K.N Phanindra for the petitioner submitted that the present circumstance is fundamentally different [changed circumstances] from when the bail was originally granted. It was argued that as a Cabinet Minister holding a portfolio, the petitioner may be required to travel beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court frequently.

It was further contended by the counsel that approaching the concerned trial court every time for permission would be impractical given the time consumed by such applications, which are not decided ex-parte but after hearing the State, and following the requisite procedure.

The Additional Solicitor General (ASG), appearing for the respondent ED, opposed the petition on several grounds: firstly that the petitioner ought to have approached the concerned trial court itself for dilution of the condition rather than directly approaching the High Court, and secondly that while changed circumstances may entitle an accused to seek relaxation, the petitioner had, for the last two years, consistently sought ad-hoc relaxation from the trial court whenever he needed to travel. Having accepted the condition for two years, he cannot now approbate and reprobate by seeking its permanent deletion, ASG argued further.

ASG asserted that since the petitioner had availed the remedy before the trial court all throughout, the proper remedy lies before that court alone.

Hearing both sides, the court reasoned that the exigencies of his office require him to travel beyond the shores of the State's jurisdiction.

The petitioner was earlier granted bail by the trial court in a case where he is booked for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

The petitioner, who was initially an ordinary citizen facing criminal proceedings, has since been inducted into the Cabinet of Ministers in the Government of Karnataka. This induction necessitated that the Court hear the matter urgently, the court had noted in the earlier interim order too.

Case Title: B Nagendra v. Enforcement Directorate

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 12007/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 311