The Karnataka High Court on July 1 [Wednesday] granted bail to G.T. Dinesh Kumar, the former Commissioner of the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA), who was arrested in connection with a money laundering case linked to the alleged MUDA land allotment scam. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 231]

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted in the order there were five 'changed circumstances' warranting a fresh consideration of Kumar's bail plea, subsequent to the rejection of Kumar's bail application by a coordinate bench twice.

The circumstances, according to the court, were subsequent filing of chargesheet in the predicate offence, grant of bail in the said predicate offence, filing of a supplementary prosecution complaint against three accused without their arrest and the trial remaining at the pre cognisance stage.

“…The changed circumstances contended are quoted hereinabove. Those should merit acceptance for the reason that… These five circumstances are undoubtedly changed circumstances to the order passed by the coordinate Bench on 20-01-2026, as every circumstance has happened subsequent to the rejection of bail application by the coordinate Bench”, the court noted in the order.

The Court directed the petitioner's release on bail upon execution of a personal bond of Rs 5,00,000 with two solvent sureties of the like amount, subject to stringent conditions.

Kumar had earlier applied for bail before the trial court, which was rejected. Afterwards, he approached the High Court in January 2026. The High Court rejected the plea, granting Kumar liberty to reapproach the court in light of any changed circumstances. Once again, citing lack of progress in trial, he approached the High Court but it was rejected. For the third time, Kumar now approached the High Court, and secured a favourable order.

Before the High Court, Senior Counsel Sandesh J Chouta for Kumar argued that there has been no progress in the trial for over three months coupled with nine changed circumstances as mentioned by the coordinate bench last time while rejecting the second bail plea. On the other hand, ASG Arvind Kamath submitted that delay in trial alone cannot justify granting of bail since economic offences should not be granted any indulgence.

“…The Apex Court, even in cases of offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has chosen to grant bail on grounds of delayed trial or on changed circumstances. The Apex Court holds that at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation on merits should not be undertaken. The accused has a right to file successive applications for grant of bail. The Court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected…”, the court clarified.

“…the Court has a duty to record fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a different view from the one earlier taken on the bail application”, the court further said.

Accordingly, the criminal petition was allowed and Dinesh Kumar was granted bail in the concerned ECIR 24/2025.

“…The documents run to about 12000 pages is an admitted fact and a plethora of witnesses to be examined is again an admitted fact. The vehement opposition of the learned Additional Solicitor General would have merited acceptance if there was no changed circumstance at all. As contended by him and also settled principle of law that merely because trial would take a long time it would not give a right to the accused to seek bail…”, the court also clarified the effect of changed circumstances in the casd.

Background

For context, the MUDA land allotment case allegedly involves Ex Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, his wife Smt. Parvathi B.M., brother in-law Mallikarjuna Swamy, land owner Devaraju and Ex-Muda Commissioner G.T Dinesh Kumar.

Snehamayi Krishna, the private complainant, had earlier alleged that there had been illegal allotment of 14 land sites by Mysore Urban Development Authority to favour Ms. Parvati, wife of CM Siddaramaiah.

The complaint consisted of allegations pertaining to the denotification of over 3 acres of land in Kesar village and its subsequent conversion as 'agricultural land' in favour of Ms. Parvati in 2010. In 2021, the Ex CM's wife was allegedly granted 14 compensatory parcels of land by MUDA.

The purchase of the property in question was on an offset price of Rs 300 in the year 1935. The determined compensation amount in favour of the owner was at Rs 3,56,000 in the year 1997. In 2021, this amount escalated to Rs 56 crores.

In September, 2024, the trial court directed the Karnataka Lokayukta police to register a case and investigate into the matter, as a result of which, FIR No. 11/2024 was registered against the Ex-CM and his family for offences including criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, benami transactions, and land grabbing etc.

Noting the presence of scheduled offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, ED initiated its investigation by registering ECIR No. BGZO/25/2024 in October, 2024. In due course, B' report was filed by the Lokayukta Police concerning the roles of Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah and his family. Later, Dinesh Kumar was arrayed as the sole accused after the ED completed its investigation.

Meanwhile the High Court, on February 7, 2025 had refused to transfer the investigation by the Lokayukta police into the alleged 'scam'.

Earlier, in March 2026, RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna had also approached the High Court against Lokayukta's 'B' report regarding the Ex-CM and his family in the case, in which the High Court issued notice on March 26. Subsequently, the ED also moved the Karnataka High Court in April challenging the acceptance of 'B' report, as a result of which, the court tagged both the matters together.

Case Title: G.T Dinesh Kumar v. ED

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7565 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 231

Click Here To Read/Download Order