Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 09 - February 15, 2026

Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 38 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 53Nominal IndexMohan v/s The State of Karnataka and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 38 Mr Irfan Nasir @ Irfi v/s The NIA 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 39The Registrar General v/s Jayban Adivasi @ Jay Singh and Others and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 40X v/s Y 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 41Sri Venkataiah v/s The State of Karnataka & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 42NIA v/s Md. Shahbaz @ Zulfikar @ Guddu and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 43Sandeep and Others v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 44Mukram Khan & Anr. v/s The State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 45IIFL Finance Ltd. v/s State of Karnataka & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 46Devaraj HD v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 47Kallalinga E Hoogar v/s Sri Siddaramaiah and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 48Mohammed Manik Hussain @ Mohammed Manik v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 49State of Karnataka v/s Smt. Prema & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 50Mrs. Estrida Lucy Janet Vaz & Others v/s NIL 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 51Christopher Charles Kamolins v/s Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 52Gowrishankar KS v/s The Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 53Judgments/OrdersDelegations Under Different Co-operative Laws Can't Be Clubbed To Attract Bar On Voting Under State Cooperative Societies Act: Karnataka HCCase title: Mohan v/s The State of Karnataka and batchWRIT PETITION NO. 107749 OF 2025 (CS –RES) and connected petitionsCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 38 The Karnataka High Court has held that even though State Cooperative Societies Act, State Souharda Sahakari Act and The Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act are cognate laws, delegation for voting under the Acts would not be hit by bar of repeat voting under Section 21 State Cooperative Societies Act.The petitions raised a challenge to the nomination of delegates by certain cooperative societies to participate in elections of Canara District Central Cooperative Bank Limited. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 6th respondent, under different statutory enactments has already exercised its right of delegation on two prior occasions and that the present nomination constitutes a third delegation, thereby infringing the statutory embargo engrafted in Section 21 of the Karnataka State Cooperative Societies Act.Arrest Made Prior To 'Pankaj Bansal' Judgment Not Illegal For Want Of Written Grounds: Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Terror AccusedCase title: Mr Irfan Nasir @ Irfi v/s The NIA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1015 OF 2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 39 The Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order denying bail to a man accused of being member of a terrorist gang and being part of criminal conspiracy to wage war against Government of Syria, observing that the mandate of furnishing written grounds of arrest as per Supreme Court's Pankaj Bansal judgment applies prospectively.In doing so the court said that the accused who was arrested in 2020, prior to Pankaj Bansal judgment cannot seek this ground to claim that the arrest was illegal.'Barbaric, Must Be Curbed With Iron Hands': Karnataka High Court Upholds Death Penalty Of 3 For Gang Rape, Murder Of Minor GirlCase title: The Registrar General v/s Jayban Adivasi @ Jay Singh and Others and batchCrl. A. Nos. 2216/2024 & 2246/2024, Crl.R.C.No.2/2024Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 40 The Karnataka High Court upheld a 2024 trial court order imposing death penalty on three men convicted for gang rape and murder of a minor girl, observing that the offence was barbaric and such acts must be curbed with iron hands.A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T in its 176 page order observed:"Having considered all these factors into consideration and materials available on record, even this Court has to strike balance between mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances. No doubt, the accused persons are young aged and the same cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion that they could be imprisoned for life and age is not a determinative factor by itself and except this circumstance, there is no other mitigating circumstances. The accused persons inhumanely in a brutal manner subjected the victim girl, who is aged about 7 years and 7 months for continuous sexual act one by one, without caring the life of the victim and the same is nothing but a barbaric act of gang rape..."Mere Claim Of Short, Discontinuous Cohabitation Not Enough To Seek DNA Test Of Child: Karnataka High Court Rejects Husband's PleaCase title: X v/s YCRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201037 OF 2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 41 The Karnataka High Court rejected a man's plea seeking DNA test of the child born to his wife suspecting the child's paternity on the ground that they did not cohabit for a long time.In doing so the court said that DNA test on paternity of a child can't be ordered as a matter of course, finding that the petitioner did not dispute that he had cohabited with the wife and also not disputed their marital status.The marriage between petitioner...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 09 - February 15, 2026

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags