Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 02 - March 08, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 89 - 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 99Nominal CitationNaveen R & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 89Geetha R v/s State of Karnataka & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 90Manjappa v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 91State v/s Ashraf @ Ballary Ashraf & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 92Mohammed Haris Nalapad v/s State By SGWF Post P.S. (RPF) 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 93D A Srinivas v/s CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 94State of Karnataka v/s Pavithra Gowda & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 95X v/s State 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 96X & Anr. v/s Chief Registrar Births and Deaths Bengaluru & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 97State of Karnataka v/s Deepak Haldar & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 98Naseer Ahmed v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 99Judgments/OrdersDemocratic Process Can't Be Curbed Unreasonably: Karnataka High Court Asks Police To Permit Use Of Loudspeakers For Trade Union's CampaignCase title: Naveen R & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.WRIT PETITION NO. 4513 OF 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 89The Karnataka High Court recently directed the police to permit a trade union to use loudspeakers for creating awareness about the organisation of a protest subject to certain conditions, observing that an awareness campaign is a facet of democratic process which cannot be restricted unreasonably.The court was hearing a plea moved by Centre for Indian Trade Unions and its President challenging a 04.02.2026 endorsement by the police rejecting the Union's application to use loudspeakers on two autorickshaws to create awareness amongst the residents of Malleshwaram, Bengaluru about a protest organised by the Union.Karnataka High Court Grants 3-Day Emergency Parole To Disabled Life Convict To Attend Sister's Wedding EventCase title: Geetha R v/s State of Karnataka & Ors.WRIT PETITION NO. 6405 OF 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 90The Karnataka High Court on Friday (February 27) granted parole 3-day emergency parole to a visually disabled man–convicted for various offences including kidnapping and sentenced to life, to enable him to attend his sister's wedding functions.The plea moved by the convict's mother stated that her son has 77% permanent visual disability (blindness) which has been certified by a hospital and he has also been issued a Unique Disability Identity Card by Government of India. The plea further stated that the convict's sister has locomotor disability and that various customary and matrimonial ceremonies connected with her marriage are scheduled to be conducted from 25.02.2026 to 01.03.2026.Delay In Lodging Complaint No Ground To Grant Acquittal: Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Convicting Man For Son-In-Law's MurderCase title: Manjappa v/s State of Karnataka CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.968 OF 2021Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 91The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that mere delay in lodging the complaint by the complainant cannot be a ground to acquit the accused in a murder case, as the immediate concern of the victim's family would be save the injured instead of approaching the police.In doing so the court upheld a trial court order convicting a man for murder and sentencing him to life, who had been booked for assaulting the deceased with with a wooden log on his, pursuant to which he succumbed to his injuries during treatment in the hospital.'No Material': Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Acquitting 8 Of Rioting Inside Mosque, Attacking Persons Offering PrayersCase title: State v/s Ashraf @ Ballary Ashraf & Ors.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1105 OF 2017, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.420 OF 2017Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 92The Karnataka High Court recently upheld a trial court order which had acquitted eight men accused of rioting and attempt to murder persons inside a mosque who were offering prayers, observing that there was no material available against the accused persons.A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T in its order noted:"Though PWs.1 and 2 have deposed regarding intention to take away their life, but they have sustained only one injury. If accused No.1 really had intended to commit the murder, he would have inflicted more number of injuries, but PWs.1 and 2 have sustained only one injury. It is also important to note that the Court has to take note of material contradictions in the evidence of other eyewitnesses and they have also spoken that others have also assaulted with stones, however, there are no stone injuries either on PWs.1 and 2.Hence, the evidence of other witnesses cannot be believed with regard to the injuries caused by others with stones and also it is clear that stones were found outside the Masjid and not inside the Masjid. In order to connect accused Nos.2 and 3, specific allegation is made that both of them have conspired, but there is no direct evidence with regard to conspiracy and conspiracy would be proved only by placing on record the circumstantial evidence. In order to substantiate the same, no material is placed before the Court...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 02 - March 08, 2026

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags