S. 187(3) BNSS | Non-Supply Of Charge Sheet To Accused Not Ground For Default Bail: Supreme Court

Cause Title: SHAURYA SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 1) held that the non-supply of a charge sheet copy to an accused cannot be a ground for a default bail under Section 187(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh upheld the Bombay High Court's decision, which had rejected the accused's plea for a default bail on the ground of non-supply of a charge sheet copy to him.

New Criminal Law Allows Police Custody Beyond First 15 Days: Supreme Court Explains S.187(2) BNSS

Cause Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS SUDA SURESH VEERA VENKATA NAGA RAJU

Observing that police custody under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not confined to the initial fifteen days of remand and may be sought in parts within the statutory period, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 27) set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's condition prohibiting extension of the accused's police custody beyond the first fifteen days of remand.

“Section 187(2) and (3) BNSS, unlike the erstwhile Section 167 under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enlarges the window during which police custody, in the aggregate not exceeding fifteen days, may be sought by the investigating agency, such custody being available in parts, during the first forty or sixty days of the total permissible period of detention, rather than being confined to the first fifteen days of remand alone.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

S. 38 BNSS | Advocate Of Accused Cannot Remain Present Throughout Police Interrogation: Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS SUDA SURESH VEERA VENKATA NAGA RAJU

Clarifying the scope of Section 38 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 27) held that the provision entitles an arrested person to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation but does not contemplate continuous physical presence throughout the interrogation.

“A plain reading of the provision makes it clear that the right guaranteed thereunder is the right to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation. It does not, by any means, contemplate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session, whatever be the visual or audible distance maintained.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Appeal Won't Lie Under S.374 CrPC/415 BNSS Against Sessions Court's Reversal Of Acquittal: Supreme Court

Cause Title: VISHNU KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 30) held that no statutory appeal under Section 374 CrPC would be maintainable before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court, overturning the trial court's decision of acquittal. The Court said that the only remedy would be to file a revision petition before the High Court against the Sessions Court decision of reversing an acquittal.

“…an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is not maintainable against a judgment of conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court. The only remedy which is available, is that of filing a revision under Section 397 r/w 401 (corresponding to Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).”, observed a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale.

Witness Testimony Recorded Without S.299 CrPC Order Can't Be Later Used Against Accused Who Absconded Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (July 31) observed that evidence recorded in a trial against one accused cannot be used against an absconding accused in a subsequent trial unless an order under Section 299 Cr.P.C. / Section 335 BNSS was passed establishing the two jurisdictional facts, i.e., the accused was absconding and that there was no immediate prospect of arresting him.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the murder conviction of the appellant, who had absconded during the trial against his co-accused in 1999 and was later convicted in a separate trial. His conviction was based on the testimony of a deceased witness which was recorded in the previous trial against the co-accused.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Suicide Abetment | 'Persistent Humiliation Touching Domestic Life & Dignity Can Amount To Instigation':Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Chandrajeet Singh vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 417

The Allahabad High Court last week refused to discharge a man accused of abetting the suicide of his alleged paramour's husband, observing that the persistent humiliation of a person, particularly when it touches upon their domestic life and dignity, can amount to instigation.

A Bench of Justice Santosh Rai thus denied relief to appellant Chandrajeet Singh while taking into account a suicide note that narrated a "systematic pattern of humiliation".

Observing that the suicide note was a critical piece of evidence, the Court said:

"While "abetment" under Section 108 BNS requires mens rea and an active act of instigation, the persistent humiliation of a person, particularly when it touches upon their domestic life and dignity, can indeed amount to instigation".

Allahabad High Court Directs Criminal Prosecution Of Litigant & Her Lawyer For 'Forging' Signatures On Affidavits In PIL

Case Title: Sangeeta Gupta v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 422

The Allahabad High Court has ordered criminal proceedings against a litigant and her advocate after finding prima facie evidence of forgery and fabrication in a public interest litigation filed before it.

The Court acted after a forensic report revealed discrepancies in the signatures appearing on documents filed in the case.

“…explanation offered by...Advocate coupled with findings recorded by FSL in its report, we are prima facie satisfied that...Advocate and petitioner Sangeeta Gupta have committed offence described in Section 215(1)(b) of BNSS and, therefore, the matter has to be tried by jurisdictional Magistrate at Prayagraj as per provisions contained under Section 379 BNSS and other allied provisions," the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed.

Absconding To Evade Arrest In Dowry Case: Allahabad High Court Rejects Mother's Habeas Corpus Plea Claiming Son Detained By Wife

Case title - Omwati And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 446

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus writ petition filed by a mother seeking the production of her 35-year-old son after noting that the man is instead absconding to evade arrest in a dowry and harassment case.

“The investigation against accused persons have been concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner Omwati and corpus Manish, under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, as such, no ground is made out for entertaining this habeas corpus writ petition,” a bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed in its July 21 order.

S. 80 & 85 BNS | Can A Man In A Void Second Marriage Be Treated As 'Husband' For Dowry Death, Cruelty Offences? Allahabad High Court Answers

Case Title: Sarvesh Alias Chhotu Alias Chhotelal vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 451

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the word 'husband' under Section 80 (Dowry Death) and 85 (Cruelty) BNS will ordinarily include only a person who is legally married to the woman, and not a person whose marriage with the woman is itself void.

In other words, the High Court clarified that a man whose second marriage is void owing to the subsistence of his first marriage cannot ordinarily be treated as a "husband' for the purposes of the above-mentioned provisions.

The Court, however, clarified that the position would be different where the validity of the first marriage is itself doubtful, where the woman was induced into the marriage by concealment of the existing marriage, or where multiple marriages are valid under Muslim Personal Law.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made this observation while granting bail to a man whose second wife had allegedly died by suicide, and he faces charges under Sections 80 (2) and 85 BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Writ Of Mandamus Can't Be Issued For Non-Registration Of Criminal Case, BNSS Provides Efficacious Remedy: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Chandan Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 456

The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in favour of a petitioner who is unable to show a legal right in himself and a corresponding public duty cast by law upon the authority.

It held that where the grievance is in substance one of non-registration of a criminal case, the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy under Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and must be relegated to it.

The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,

“Mandamus is the most valuable and essential remedy in the Administrative Justice resorted to supply want of some appropriate ordinary remedy. The functions of the writ court is to compel the performance of public duty, for which, the person approaching the writ court, has a clear, specific and unequivocal, constitutional or statutory or legal right to the relief sought and a failure on the part of those who are bound to perform certain duties and functions, as laid down by the legislature or directions issued for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of an enactment or of any delegated or subordinate legislation. There must be a legal right and corresponding legal duty.”

Refusal Of Judicial Remand Doesn't Bar Further Investigation Or Taking Cognizance: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Adeem Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 459

The Allahabad High Court has held that merely because judicial remand was earlier declined would not by itself preclude the Investigating Officer from conducting further investigation or prevent the court from independently considering the police report at the stage of taking cognizance.

A bench of Justice Zafeer Ahmad made the observation while dismissing a criminal appeal challenging an order of the Special Judge, SCST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, taking cognizance and summoning the appellant in a case registered under Section 69 BNS and Sections 3(1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v) of the SCST Act.

The Court observed

"An order refusing judicial remand is passed at a distinct stage of the criminal proceedings and serves a purpose entirely different from an order taking cognizance Such an order neither amounts to an adjudication upon the legality of the investigation nor operates as a judicial determination that the offences in question are not made out".

It further held

"It certainly does not curtail the statutory authority of the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation collect further material and submit an appropriate police report under the provisions of the BNSS 2023".

S.528 BNSS | Can High Court Invoke Its Inherent Powers Suo Motu To Quash Criminal Case In A Complainant's Appeal? Allahabad HC Answers

Case title - X Complainant Of Complaint Case No. 65/2026 2026 vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 467

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the HC can invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) suo motu to quash criminal proceedings even while dealing with an appeal filed by the complainant where it finds that continuation of the proceedings would defeat the "ends of justice" or amount to an "abuse of the process of any Court".

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while dealing with an appeal filed by a complainant challenging an order of the Special Judge whereby her application under Section 173 (4) BNSS was treated as a complaint instead of directing registration of an FIR on the application.

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

S.482 BNSS | Accused Need Not Surrender Before Jurisdictional Magistrate To Avail Anticipatory Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: T. Gevanamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Section 438 CrPC/Section 482 BNSS does not require an accused to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate as a condition for availing anticipatory bail. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 151]

While modifying the Sessions Court's direction requiring the petitioner to surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate within seven days, the Court observed that an anticipatory bail order must provide for the accused's release in the event of arrest and cannot make such relief conditional upon surrender before a Magistrate.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao observed:

"Importantly, Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 482 of the BNSS does not contemplate a requirement that the Petitioner must surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate and only upon such surrender be released on bail.

Can POCSO Court Frame Charges Without Hearing Accused On Discharge? Andhra Pradesh High Court Answers

Case Title: Shaik Shahina & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a POCSO Special Court cannot frame charges without first affording the accused an effective opportunity of hearing on the question of discharge as contemplated under Sections 250 and 251 BNSS. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 152]

Clarifying that the POCSO Act's mandate for expeditious trials does not override the accused's statutory right to seek discharge, the Court observed that under Section 251(1) BNSS, charges can be framed only after the accused is heard on discharge under Section 250 BNSS.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Police Entering Woman's Bedroom Without Lady Constable Violates Privacy: Bombay High Court Declares Mobile Seizure Illegal

Case Title: Khushbu Iddrish Khan vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 128 of 2026)

Holding that police officers cannot ride roughshod over statutory safeguards in the name of investigation, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has ruled that police entering a woman's bedroom at night without a lady constable and seizing her mobile phone without following the procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) amounted to a violation of her right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution

A division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta noted that section 185 mandates an investigating officer to record in writing, in the case-diary, as to why the search is necessary, also to record (both audio and video) the entire search etc.

Magistrate Can Invoke BNSS Search Provision To Recover Child Forcibly Taken Away By Father: Bombay High Court

Case Title: SSNA vs SAAR (Criminal Application 213 of 2026)

The Bombay High Court has held that a Magistrate can invoke the search provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to recover a child allegedly taken away by his father from the mother's custody by force.

Upholding orders passed by a Magistrate in Malegaon directing the police to search the father's residence and subsequently restore the custody of the three-year-old child to the mother, the Court found that the Sessions Court had erred in interfering with those directions.

Hearing Accused At Pre-Cognizance Stage Mandatory Under BNSS For Offences Under SEBI Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Neville Tuli v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Anr. [Writ Petition No. 5242 of 2025]

The Bombay High Court has held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, mandating an opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance of a complaint applies to prosecutions under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The Court observed that the Special Court could not take cognizance of an offence under the SEBI Act without first hearing the accused.

Justice N. J. Jamadar was hearing a writ petition filed challenging an order of the Special Court taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 24(2) of the SEBI Act and issuing process. The prosecution arose from allegations that Osian's Art Fund failed to comply with directions issued by SEBI requiring the refund of investors' money with interest. SEBI filed a complaint against the petitioner and another director before the Special Court.

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

Police Must Strictly Comply With Arnesh Kumar Safeguards; Procedural Lapses Cannot Be Taken Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Ajay Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [W.P.(Cr.) No. 370 of 2026]

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that strict adherence to the safeguards governing arrest and remand, particularly the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, is of paramount importance and that procedural lapses by police officials cannot be treated casually. [2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 81]

The Court observed that every police officer is under a statutory obligation to comply with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the law declared by the Supreme Court, and that accountability must be ensured to prevent recurrence of such lapses.

Chhattisgarh High Court Awards ₹25,000 Compensation For Illegal Detention After Man Kept In Jail Despite Furnishing Court-Ordered Bail Bond

Case Title: Ashraf Beg v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WPCR No. 564 of 2025]

The Chhattisgarh High Court has awarded ₹25,000 as compensation to a man whose right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated after he was kept in judicial custody despite furnishing the bail bond directed by the Executive Magistrate. The Court observed that a person arrested merely on suspicion, against whom no cognizable or non-bailable offence is made out, cannot be remanded to judicial custody and ought to be released on bail in accordance with law.

The Court held that the power of arrest under Section 35 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 41 CrPC) is preventive in nature and cannot be exercised routinely. It observed that the State had failed to produce any material demonstrating that the petitioner had committed a cognizable offence, and therefore there was no justification for insisting upon security for his release.

The Court further held that a Magistrate cannot mechanically remand a person to custody and must satisfy himself that a non-bailable offence appears to have been committed and that custodial detention is genuinely necessary. It emphasised that liberty under Article 21 includes freedom from humiliation, unnecessary arrest and arbitrary detention.

DELHI HIGH COURT

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking FIR Against Amit Shah, Rahul Gandhi For Not Notifying BNS 'Hit-And-Run' Provision

Title: Ritu Gauba v. Commissioner of Police

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking registration of FIR against all MPs, as well as Union Minister Amit Shah and LoP Rahul Gandhi for failing to notify Section 106(2) of Bharitiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 653]

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the PIL filed by lawyer Ritu Gauba who appeared in person.

GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Sessions Court 'Prima Facie' Exceeded Bail Jurisdiction By Directing Executive Action On Alleged Land Grabbing, Mob Violence: Gujarat High Court

Case title: SATRABHAI RAMABHAI DAMOR v/s STATE OF GUJARAT

The Gujarat High Court has summoned the Law Officers branch, observing that the sessions court had "prima facie exceeded its jurisdiction" under S.483 BNSS which relates to bail, by referring its order to various state authorities for implementation of Supreme Court's directions in mob lynching cases. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 186]

Notably the sessions court had denied bail to three accused of assaulting forest and police personnel, observing that it was a land grabbing offence and the District Magistrate needs to take appropriate action.

Noting that "prima facie exceeding of jurisdiction" by the Sessions Court under Section 483 BNSS "ought not to be overlooked" by the High Court, it thus asked the Law Officers branch to remain present through its advocate on the next date of hearing.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT

Dismissal Of Complaint Before Cognisance Is Not Acquittal, Can Be Challenged Under Section 528 BNSS: J&K&L High Court

Case: Abdul Razzak Beigh v. Altaf Ahmad Khan

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has clarified the distinction between pre-cognizance dismissal of a criminal complaint and dismissal after issuance of process, holding that only the latter attracts Section 279 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and results in an acquittal appealable under Section 419(4).

The court went on to explain that where a complaint is dismissed before cognizance is taken or before process is issued, the order does not amount to an acquittal and can be assailed by invoking the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, or through revision where failure of justice is demonstrated.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

'Police Can't Be Doctoring': Karnataka High Court Slams State Over Notices To Women Hospital Staff In Unnatural Death Case, Stays Probe

Case No: Dr. Vinuta B. & M/s. Kids Clinic India Ltd. (Cloudnine Hospital) v. State of Karnataka & Konankunte Police Station

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday [ July 7] strongly reprimand the police for allegedly overstepping their authority while investigation into the death of a patient at Cloudnine Hospital, and stayed all proceedings against the hospital and its staff.

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while hearing a petition filed by Dr. Vinuta B. and M/s. Kids Clinic India Limited (operating Cloudnine Hospital), questioned the police for issuing multiple notices to the hospital's staff, including 10 women staff, under Section 179 BNSS [Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses].

While the Court acknowledged the 'unfortunate incident' of the death of a patient, it vehemently objected to the police's approach to the UDR (Unnatural Death Report) investigation remarking that "police should not enter into doctoring”.

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Over Allegedly Anti-National Social Media Post After Woman Undertakes Not To Make Similar Posts

Case Title: Afeefa Fathima vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against a 24-year-old woman hailing from Mangaluru for her allegedly anti-national and anti-Hindu social media posts, accepting her affidavit of regret and an undertaking to exercise caution in the future.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 241]

A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Afeefa Fathima, a dietician by profession, quashing a crime from 2025 registered at the Mangaluru South Police Station for offences under Sections 196(1)(a) [creating enmity between groups via any medium] and 353(2)[ Statements Conducing to Public Mischief] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

'Investigate Murder, Not TheTweet': Karnataka High Court Stays Probe Against Law Student Booked Over Bantwal Murder Post Targeting Congress

Case Details: Kiran @ Kiran Aradhya (Law Student) v. State of Karntaka

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (July 20) stayed further investigation against a sixth-semester law student who was booked in two separate FIRs over a social media post on the murder of a young woman at the Bantwal bus stand, in which he had alleged that the Congress government would “quietly withdraw” the case against the accused.

Granting interim relief, the single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna orally observed that the focus of the authorities should be on investigating the murder rather than the student's post.

“This is not where we want to glorify or celebrate this incident. What we should do is not get sensitive about these things. Investigate into the man who hacked her to death. You are blowing this tweet out of proportion, you are giving it the colour of Section 192 of the BNS/153A of the IPC, 353(2)/505(2) of the IPC…,” the Court observed.

KERALA HIGH COURT

Does Informing Live-In Partner's Father Fulfil Police Duty To Notify Family Of Arrest? Kerala High Court Answers

Case Title: Muhashib v. State of Kerala and Anr.

The Kerala High Court recently granted bail to an NDPS accused after finding that the legal requirement to inform his relative or friend about arrest was not satisfied in the case. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 407]

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that the grounds of arrest was communicated only to the father of the applicant's live-in partner, who is a co-accused (accused No. 2) in the case. This, according to the Court, did not satisfy the legal requirement under Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

'Words Not Proper But No Intent To Hurt Religious Sentiments': MP High Court Grants Relief To Man Booked Over Remarks On Goddess Sita

Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC No-29490-2026

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a programme host accused of promoting religious enmity by reciting a couplet concerning the abduction of Goddess Sita, observing that although the choice of words may have been inappropriate, it does not prima facie indicate an intention to hurt public sentiments or create communal disharmony. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 289]

Justice Devnarayan Mishra observed:

"From the video, it is clear that the applicant/poet has clearly stated that the inmates of Lanka or women of Lanka were discussing in such a way that Mata Sita will perish whole Lanka. In the context, in which the aforesaid couplet (doha) was recited, the word selection may not be proper, but at this stage, it cannot be said that the applicant was intending to hurt the sentiments of the public or wanted to create any mischief, riot, affray or disharmony among the people on the basis of religion."

The Court was hearing an application seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered for offences under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which penalises statements conducing to public mischief.

MP High Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Buying Newborn, Says Offence Of Human Trafficking Prima Facie Not Made Out

Case Title: Rubina v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-29110-2026

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a woman accused of trafficking by buying a newborn child, observing that she had arranged the child for her daughter and therefore the ingredients of trafficking under Section 143 of the BNS were prima facie not fulfilled. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 287]

The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh observed:

"...daughter of the present applicant have no issues and child was arranged only for the daughter of the applicant. Accordingly, the arguments of the counsel have substance that the essential ingredients of the expression 'exploitation', as defined in Explanation 1 appended to Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are not attracted to the facts of the present case..."

MP High Court Awards ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Police Constable Illegally Detained In Bailable Offence

Case Title: Rahul Ataria v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-11135-2025

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has awarded ₹5 lakh compensation to a police constable who was illegally detained in connection with a bailable offence, holding that the police cannot keep an accused in custody merely because they intend to produce him before a Magistrate within 24 hours. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 305]

The bench highlighted that Section 47(2) of BNSS mandates that an arrested person in a bailable offence must be informed of his right to be released on bail, as the purpose of the provision is to safeguard personal liberty and therefore the statutory obligation under the said provision is mandatory in nature.

"Section 47(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita unequivocally provides that when a person is arrested for a bailable offence, the arresting officer shall inform him that he is entitled to be released on bail. The statutory obligation is mandatory in nature and is intended to safeguard personal liberty. The purpose of the provision would stand defeated if an accused in a bailable offence is unnecessarily confined in police custody and produced before the Magistrate only after prolonged detention".

MADRAS HIGH COURT

S.48 BNSS Doesn't Mandate Written Intimation Of Arrest To Relatives, Intimation Through Phone Call/ SMS Valid: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dhetchinamoorthy @ Dakshinamoorthy v State

The Madras High Court recently held that section 48 of the BNSS does not mandate that the intimation of arrest be given in writing to the relatives of the arrested persons. The court held that an intimation through phone call or SMS is a valid intimation. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 337]

Justice R Vijayakumar thus refused to interfere with the remand of four persons arrested in an NDPS case on the ground that the intimation was not given to the relatives in writing.

The court noted that the relatives, friends and other persons nominated by the arrested persons had been informed about the arrest through SMS or phone call, based on the information provided, and there was no allegation from the relative that they were not informed.

ORISSA HIGH COURT

S.31 CrPC/ S.25 BNSS | Court Can't Order Consecutive Sentences For Offences Committed In 'Single Transaction': Orissa High Court

Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Behera v. State of Orissa

The Orissa High Court has held that a Court, while convicting and imposing punishment on an accused for commission of more than one offence, cannot order respective sentences to run consecutively if the offences are committed in a 'single transaction'.

Reiterating the Apex Court ruling in O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2014), the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh modified the consecutive sentence imposed on the petitioner and ordered it to run concurrently, since the offences were committed in a single transaction. It observed,

“Answering the reference as to whether substantive sentences can be directed to run concurrently or consecutively in the light of Section 31 of the Cr.P.C., the Apex Court laid down the law that when the prosecution is based on a single transaction which constitutes two or more offences, the sentences are to run concurrently…However, being oblivious to the salutary principles of sentencing referred to hereinabove, the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court directed the sentences to run consecutively.”

Magistrate Must Disclose 'Substance Of Information' While Issuing S.126 BNSS Notice To Execute Bond For Keeping Peace: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Sumitra Dhal & Ors. v. State of Odisha

The Orissa High Court has ruled that an Executive Magistrate is duty-bound to disclose the 'substance of information' received by him while issuing show-cause notice to a person to explain why he should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping peace under Section 126 BNSS. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 76]

Stressing on the importance of the aforesaid critical legal requirement as mandated under Section 130 of the BNSS, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held–

“Section 130 of the BNSS mandates that before calling upon a person to show cause under Section 126, the Magistrate shall set forth in writing the substance of the information received. The requirement is intended to disclose the basic grounds on which preventive action is considered necessary…Although the provision speaks of the “substance of the information”, it does not mean that the order should not be comprehensive. The order need not reproduce the information verbatim; however, it must give proper notice of what moved the Magistrate to initiate the proceedings.”

PATNA HIGH COURT

Pressuring Spouse To Sign Divorce & Child Custody Papers Doesn't Constitute 'Cruelty': Patna High Court

Case Title: Raghvendra Kishore Singh @ Raghvendra Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr.

The Patna High Court has held that merely pressuring a spouse to sign divorce and child custody papers during matrimonial negotiations does not constitute the offence of cruelty under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court observed that such conduct neither amounts to harassment for an unlawful demand of property nor to wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury, as contemplated under Section 86 of the BNS.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Praveen Kumar quashed an FIR registered against a husband under various provisions of the BNS, holding that even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted at face value, the case fell within the categories warranting quashing laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Out Of Devotion Not Offence Under S.298 BNS: P&H High Court Quashes FIR

Title: Ranjanni Gaur v. State of Punjab and another

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a woman for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by dressing up her pet dog as Lord Krishna and posting its images on WhatsApp, holding that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) were not made out. [2025 LiveLaw (PH) 218]

The Court further added that the gesture made by the petitioner by dressing up her pet in the customary attire of Janamashtami seems to have been done in good faith and without malice. The posting of the photo on WhatsApp appears to be out of an intention of love and for showcasing her affection.

Pre-Cognizance Hearing Of Accused U/S 223 BNSS Not Applicable To SFIO Proceedings Under Companies Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Vivo India Private Limited v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Ministry of Corporate Affairs

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing of accused, contemplated under the first proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is not available to persons proposed to be arrayed as accused in prosecutions instituted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under the Companies Act, 2013. [2025 LiveLaw (PH) 224]

Justice Subhas Mehla noted,

"...prosecution complaints instituted by the SFIO pursuant to investigation under Section 212 of the Act, 2013 are not governed by the proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS, and the proposed accused have no vested right to claim a pre-cognizance hearing before the Special Court."

TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Telangana High Court Upholds Bail Cancellation After POCSO Accused Refuses DNA Test, Says It Amounts To Non-Cooperation

Case Title: Haseeb Ullah Khan v. State of Telangana

The Telangana High Court has upheld the cancellation of bail granted to an accused in a POCSO case after he refused to undergo a DNA test, holding that DNA profiling is a recognised investigative tool in sexual offence cases under Section 51 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).[2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 113]

The Court held that an accused cannot refuse such examination by invoking the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Justice K. Sujana observed:

"The request made by the Investigating Officer for the petitioner to undergo a DNA test is in accordance with law. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka is misplaced, as the said decision deals with involuntary scientific techniques such as narco-analysis, polygraph examination and brain-mapping, and not with DNA profiling under Section 51 of the BNSS."

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

Mere Smell Of Alcohol Without Blood Test Or Breathalyser Cannot Establish Drunken Driving: Uttarakhand High Court

Case Title: Amar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the smell of alcohol on the breath of an accused, without a blood test or breathalyser establishing that the alcohol concentration exceeded the statutory limit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot establish drunken driving or justify framing a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Justice Alok Mahra passed the ruling while partly allowing a criminal revision filed against an order of the Sessions Judge framing charges under Sections 105, 125(a), 125(b) and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226 - 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 273

Nominal Index

Radha & Ors. v. BBM Ispat Limited & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226

The Office Of Insurance v. M V Naramsimha Prasad, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 227

Micah Mark & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 228

V v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 229

Directorate of Enforcement v. Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 230

G.T Dinesh Kumar v. ED, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 231

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited v. The Official Liquidator of M/s BPL Engineering Limited (In Liquidation) & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 232

M. Ajay Kumar & Anr. v. State by Hosakote Police & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 233

The State of Karnataka & Another vs. Sri Rangaswamy A.R., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 234

N. Anil Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 235

X v. Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 236

V.S. Kanakaraj & Anr. vs. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 237

Babu Rao v. State of Karnataka & Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 238

Mrs. Rekha Gupta (71 years, USA resident) v. NIL, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 239

Chethana v. Pradeep Achar & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 240

Shivaprasad Bhat & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 241

Century Club vs. S. Umapathy & Anr.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 242

Sangeetha Agrawal & Anr. vs. M/S Esteem Gardenia Apartment Owners Association, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 243

Manjunatha H.C. vs. Buden Sab & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 244

P v. State of Karnataka & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 245

Velu @ Velmayil Somu & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 246

Munirathna v. State by Nandini Layout Police Station & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 247

Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 248

K.H. Muniyappa & Anr. v. State by Robertsonpet Police Station & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 249

The Advocates Bar Association Kanakapura v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 250

Kumari Shamshad Begum & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 251

Shivaprasad Bhat & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 252

Sri Girish Mattenavar v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 253

Tummala Manoj Kumar v. State Of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 254

MR. DARSHAN SRINIVAS & ANR v. SIRI PRODUCTIONS & ORS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 255

M v. B, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 256

Girish Patil & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 257

Vincent Correa v. Viyola Prathvi Correa , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 258

P v. State of Karnataka & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 259

TJ V. State Of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 260

Bharathi Education Society Trust v. State of Karnataka & Panchayat Development Officer, Grama Panchayat, Bharathinagara., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 261

Divisional Manager, Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. V. Sri Satish S/o Basavaraj Kurubar, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 262

Gadilinga S/o Dodda Basappa v. State of Karnataka & Sharabhayya B., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 263

Y. Venkateshwara Prasad & Ors. v. The State Commissioner for Persons with Disability & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 264

Suresh Babu J.N. & Ors. v. Jaganmohan & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 265

K v. M., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 266

Sanket & Anr. v. Regional Manager, Karnataka Grameen Bank & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 267

Sri. Jawahar Gopal & Anr v. Vishal Baliga D, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 268

Pavitra Ramanujam v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 269

Devanura Mahadeva & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 270

M/s Sujal Pharma v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 271

The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 272

Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s AMR Housing Development Corporation & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 273

Judgments/ Orders

Sole Proprietor Who Personally Executes Work Covered Under Employees' Compensation Act: Karnataka High Court Holds Insurer Liable

Case Title: Radha & Ors. v. BBM Ispat Limited & Ors.

Case No: MFA No. 200447 of 2020

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226

Allowing an appeal filed by the dependents of a deceased sole proprietor, Karnataka High Court has recently held that a proprietor who personally undertakes a hazardous work cannot be denied compensation by reasoning that he is a business owner who wouldn't fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226]

The Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, while setting aside the Raichur Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's order, noted that the principal employer and the insurer is jointly and severally liable to pay Rs 7,07,760/-as compensation [ for loss of dependency, estate and funeral expenses] to the dependents along with 12 per cent interest.

“…. In India, a substantial proportion of commercial and industrial activity is carried on through sole proprietary concerns. Unlike large corporate organisations... the proprietor of a small proprietary concern often constitutes the principal technician, mechanic, operator, supervisor, manager and administrator rolled into one. He secures the contract, arranges the resources, supervises the work and very often personally executes the work itself”, Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted in his supplementary opinion in the judgment authored by Justice C. Sumalatha.

Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Allowing Policyholder To Engage Lawyer Before Insurance Ombudsman

Case Title: The Office Of Insurance v. M V Naramsimha Prasad

Case No: WA 1534/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 227

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (July 1) dismissed an appeal filed by the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman challenging a single-judge's order that permitted a complainant to engage an advocate during the adjudicatory stage of proceedings before the Ombudsman. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 227]

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha upheld the single-judge's ruling, which stated that the Ombudsman discharges a quasi-judicial function and cannot deny legal representation once the matter moves beyond mediation.

“…Learned counsel for respondent accepts notice. Petition is finally heard. For the reasons mentioned above appeal is dismissed. Condonation of delay is allowed”, the court noted in the order.

'Funding Is Oxygen Enabling Extremism To Survive': Karnataka High Court Upholds UAPA FIR Against Missionary Group Accused Of Aiding Naxals

Case Title: Micah Mark & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Connected Matters

Case Nos: Criminal Petition No. 8401/2026 & Criminal Petition No. 8417/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 228

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (June 1) refused to quash a UAPA case lodged against the functionaries and alleged associates of a missionary group 'The Timothy Initiative'-including its India Head- accused of using over 1000 international debit cards to channel around Rs. 100 crores funds to Naxal regions. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 228]

The ED has alleged that The Timothy Initiative disbursed Rs 92.55 crore to 'Left Wing Extremism-affected' regions.

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted in the order that since the case concerns national security, investigation is warranted instead of summary quashing, the court held.

“National security is the invisible architecture upon which the sovereignty, stability and constitutional order of a nation rest. One of the gravest threats to National security in the present times is, the clandestine funding of extremism. …Funding becomes the oxygen that enables extremist movements to survive and proliferate. The danger of extremist financing lies not merely in the money transferred, but in the consequences it unleashes. Left unchecked, such funding can transform ideological extremism into organized violence, threatening National unity and public safety…”, the Court observed.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Cruelty FIR Against Sister-In-Law Residing Abroad, Says Alleged Telephonic 'Instigation' Doesn't Attract S.498A IPC

Case Title: V v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 10716 of 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 229

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a cruelty case lodged by a woman against her sister-in-law who resides in Luxembourg, for allegedly 'filling the ears' of her in-laws by repeatedly calling them. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 229]

The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna noted that complaint about sister-in-law torturing the complainant through such phone calls cannot be accepted in the absence of specific allegations, since instigation, that too by way of telephonic conversation, would not meet the ingredients of Section 498A IPC

The primary allegation against the petitioner was that she would call and instigate the in-laws against the complainant- wife.

“..All that the petitioner is alleged of in the complaint is that, she was filling in the ear of mother in-law and father-in-law by repeatedly calling over the telephone, from Luxemburg. Except this, there is no other allegation against the petitioner… Instigation that too, by way of telephonic conversation would not mean that it would become an ingredient of Section 498A of the IPC”, the court said.

Karnataka High Court Rejects ED's Bail Cancellation Plea Against Aishwarya Gowda Accused In Gold Investment Scam

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda

Case No: CRL.P No.13915 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 230

The Karnataka High Court has last week dismissed a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to Aishwarya Gowda, accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 for an alleged ₹15 crores Gold Investment Scam. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 230]

The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty noted that the proviso to Section 45 PMLA, which prescribes special treatment for Bail to women and others in money laundering cases, is not automatic. However, any such denial of special treatment, must be reasoned.

“…the respondent[Aishwarya Gowda] has been granted bail in all the cases registered against her for predicate offences and further proceedings in some of the cases registered against her for predicate offences has been stayed by this Court. The respondent who is a married women was in custody for nearly two months and the Trial Judge has observed that it is not the case of the prosecution that they require the presence of the respondent for investigation in the present case”, the High Court said.

Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Former MUDA Commissioner In PMLA Case, Recognizes 'Changed Circumstances' And Delay In Trial

Case Title: G.T Dinesh Kumar v. ED

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7565 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 231

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.

'Law Should Never Be A Puzzle': Karnataka High Court Urges Legislature To Revive Practice Of Using Illustrations In Statutes

Case Title: Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited v. The Official Liquidator of M/s BPL Engineering Limited (In Liquidation) & Ors.

Case No: Company Application No. 49/2025, Company Application No. 86/2025, Company Application No. 89/2025 in Company Petition No. 160/2005

Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 232

The Karnataka High Court has recently remarked that law which is 'meant for common man' must be drafted in 'the simplest possible way', while suggesting that the legislature should bring back the practise of using illustrations in the statute to reduce conflicts about its interpretation and ensuing litigation. [2026 Livelaw (Kar) 232]

The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde emphasised that the drafting of statutes, if it follows the practise of incorporating illustrations, would reduce potential litigation. The single judge bench was presiding over a matter of a dispute between a company and the Telangana commercial tax department over the assets of BPL Engineering Pvt Ltd.

“…The importance of illustrations found in several enactments, such as the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in capturing the true import of a provision is well known. However, perhaps unknowingly or unintentionally, such a worthy practice has been forgotten. It is high time it should be revived,”, the court observed.

The court went on to cite the conflicting opinions of various High Courts regarding the prospective/ retrospective and retroactive operation of statutes and its subsequent amendments. For example, Chapter IV A [registration of security interests with the Central Registry (CERSAI)] of the SARFAESI Act has also given rise to divergent opinions about its application, the court further stated.

Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Persons Booked For Defacing Dr BR Ambedkar's Portrait With Cow Dung

Case Title: M. Ajay Kumar & Anr. v. State by Hosakote Police & Anr.

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 233

The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to two persons accused of defiling the portrait of Dr. B R Ambedkar with cow dung at Hosakote, noting that the appellants have been in judicial custody since April 28, 2026. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 233]

While granting bail, Justice S. Rachaiah noted that an eye witness had seen and identified the two appellants and a third accused throwing cow dung at Ambedkar's portrait, as seen from the case diary and chargsheet. However, the court also took into account the duration of the appellants' period of judicial custody, while granting bail.

“…As per the said statement, it would indicate that the appellants and accused No.3 have defaced the portrait of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar by throwing cow dung and he is stated to have identified those persons. However, he did not disclose immediately as he was going to Bangalor. Further, the statement of complainant indicates that these persons defaced the portrait of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar with cow dung. …Be that as it may, the appellants are in judicial custody since 28.04.2026. Having considered the gravity and nature of offence, it is appropriate to grant bail to the appellants by imposing suitable bail conditions that will take care of apprehension of the prosecution…”, the court said.

Promotion On Day Of Superannuation, Employee Entitled To All Promotional Benefits: Karnataka HC

Case Name : The State of Karnataka & Another vs. Sri Rangaswamy A.R.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.34058 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 234

A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice Venkatesh Naik T held that a government employee who validly assumes charge of a promoted post on the date of superannuation is entitled to all consequential promotional and pensionary benefits from that date, even if the charge was assumed after noon.

The respondent was appointed as a School Headmaster. Later he was promoted to the cadre of Professor, C.T.E. on 31.05.2023 (equivalent to Reader/DDPI). He handed over charge and reported for duty in the promoted post on same day i.e. 31.05.2023 at 5.20 p.m. On the same day, he was relieved from service due to his retirement on superannuation. On 14.08.2023, he submitted a representation to the State requesting promotional benefits from the date of his promotion. However, the State rejected his request.

Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an Application before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which allowed the application and directed the State to grant all consequential benefits in the promoted cadre. Challenging the Tribunal's order, the State Government filed the writ petition.

'Can't Stigmatize Over Medical Condition': Karnataka High Court Permits Priest Having Vitiligo To Perform Rituals At Chamundeshwari Temple

Case Title: N. Anil Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No: Writ Petition No. 19727 of 2026 (GM-R/C)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 235

The Karnataka High Court has recently directed the Chamundeshwari Temple authorities to permit a hereditary priest suffering from vitiligo to perform his duties, emphasising that stigmatisation based on a non-contagious medical condition amounts to discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 235]

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj underscored that no scientific reasons or religious scriptures prevents a person with vitiligo from discharging the duties as the priest.

“…Both the medical authorities as well as the Agama Pandits have categorically opined that vitiligo neither constitutes a disqualification nor operates as a prohibition for the performance of pujas. The medical certificate issued by the competent authority clearly records that the condition suffered by the petitioner is not contagious. The Agama Pandits, upon examination of the relevant religious texts, have further opined that there is no scriptural interdiction preventing a person suffering from vitiligo from discharging the duties of a Sannidhi Paricharaka...In the considered opinion of this Court, therefore, the respondents cannot rely upon the petitioner's medical condition as a ground to deprive him of the hereditary rights and privileges attached to the post or to prevent him from performing the pujas and other religious duties attached thereto”, the court held.

'Can't Get Rights After Avoiding Duty': Karnataka High Court Denies Visitation To Father Who Gave Up Rights In Divorce Settlement

Case Title: X v. Y

Case No: Writ Petition No. 13050 of 2026 (GM-FC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 236

The Karnataka High Court has held that a father who voluntarily gave up his visitation rights in a mediated settlement during divorce proceedings cannot later seek visitation rights, especially when he was not willing to bear the financial and emotional responsibility for his child. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 236]

The single judge bench of Justice P Sree Sudha noted that since the father has avoided the 'duty' he owed to his child, he can't seek visitation rights, and accordingly set aside the Family Court's order which allowed him visitation rights.

“…Both the parties settled the matter before Mediation and father of the child voluntarily and cautiously given up his rights for visitation and, is not permitted to again commence litigation after one year. When he is not ready to take-up the responsibility of the child financially and emotionally, he can't interfere in the life of the child for visitation again. When he avoids duty, he can't get rights...”, the Court noted in the order in clear terms.

'Unwanted Nuisance': Karnataka High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Costs On BDA For Selling Same Site Twice, Directs Recovery From Erring Officer

Case Title: V.S. Kanakaraj & Anr. vs. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 11168 of 2019

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 237

The Karnataka High Court has pulled up the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for creating an "unwanted nuisance" and exposing citizens to "unwanted litigation" after it mistakenly allotted and sold the same site to two different parties. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 237]

The Court directed the BDA to pay ₹1 lakh to the original allottees and recover the amount from the salary of the officer responsible for the lapse, in accordance with law.

Justice R. Nataraj was hearing a petition filed by purchasers who had acquired Site No. 3504/C through a public auction conducted by the BDA in 2003. The Court noted that the very same property was subsequently renumbered as Site No. 2293 and allotted and conveyed by the BDA to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

During the hearing, the BDA submitted that it had realised its mistake and had instituted O.S. No. 8253/2025 seeking cancellation of the subsequent allotment and sale deeds executed in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It also informed the Court that an alternate site had been allotted to Respondent No. 6, who had purchased the property from Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

Karnataka High Court Upholds Law Transferring First Appeals Against Senior Civil Judges' Decrees To District Courts

Case Title: Babu Rao v. State of Karnataka & Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka

Case No: W.A. No. 200260/2025 & W.P. No. 17588/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 238

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023 and the Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023 that transferred jurisdiction over regular first appeals arising from decrees passed by Senior Civil Judges' courts from the High Court to District Courts. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 238]

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that litigants do not possess a vested right to have their appeals heard by a particular forum and that the legislature is competent to alter the forum of appeal.

At the same time, the Court read down the retrospective operation of the amendments to protect judgments and orders already passed by the High Court in such appeals.

“…The view that the legislative amendments introduced by impugned legislations are applicable to the pending proceedings is established for two reasons. First, the forum of appeal is a matter of procedural law, and thus, unless the legislative intent appears otherwise, the said provisions would be presumed to apply retrospectively and govern the pending proceedings. Second, that Section 4 of the Civil Courts Amendment Act expressly provides that the amendments shall come into force retrospectively from 28.08.2007”, the court laid down in unequivocal terms by upholding the effect of amendments.

Karnataka High Court Relaxes VC Rules, Allows Senior Citizen Widow In USA To Record Evidence From Her Home In Probate Case

Case Title: Mrs. Rekha Gupta (71 years, USA resident) v. NIL

Case No.: WP 12610/2026 (GM-CPC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 239

The Karnataka High Court has relaxed the Video Conferencing Rules to permit a 71-year-old widow to record evidence from her residence in the United States of America in a probate proceeding, without seeking the services of Embassy. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 239].

The single judge of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, exercising the power conferred under Rule 18 of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts [Notification HCC No.18/2020] allowed the petitioner to record her evidence [Examination-in-chief] without availing the services of the Indian Embassy.

Significantly, Rule 18 vests powers on the High Court, if the operation of any rule is causing undue hardship, to dispense with or relax the requirements of such rule by an order.

“...The petitioner is permitted to record her evidence without availing the services of the Indian Embassy, and the rigour of Rule 5.1 read with Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules, 2020 is relaxed to this extent, subject to the safeguards set out in para 9 above”, the court held while directing the trial court to decide the probate petition within three months.

Without the relaxation accorded to the petitioner by the court, Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules makes it mandatory for foreign residents to route the proceedings through the Indian Embassy. Along with it, Rule 5.1 of the 2020 Rules requires a co-ordinator at a remote point be it Indian Consulate, the relevant Indian Embassy or the relevant High Commission of India.

Karnataka High Court Grants ₹20 Lakh Towards 'Lifetime Caretaker' Expenses To Woman Left Permanently Disabled In Road Accident

Case Title: Chethana v. Pradeep Achar & Ors.

Case No: MFA No. 1405/2021 (MV-I)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 240

The Karnataka High Court has awarded Rs.20 lakhs towards caretaker expenses for the next 50 years to a 34-year-old woman who suffered severe head injuries in a motorcycle accident, rendering her permanently disabled. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 240]

Opining that extreme cognitive deficit and her inability to go back to her avocation would amount to 100 per cent loss of earning capacity, the Division Bench of Justices Jayant Banerji and Tara Vitasta Ganju enhanced the compensation for permanent disability awarded by the MACT Tribunal five-fold.

Therefore, the total compensation in the appeal was increased to Rs 55 Lakhs from Rs 11 lakhs awarded by the Tribunal. Moreover, the court also said that Rs 1 lakh awarded by the MACT Tribunal for caretaker and future medical expenses was 'wholly inadequate'.

“…Since the appellant/claimant is unable to take care of her day-to day activities or be able to live her life in a normal way, she would require an attendant for the rest of her life at least for 50 years. Given her age at the time of the accident and she would require an attendant for the rest of her life, this Court deems it apposite to award 'Caretaker expenses' for a period of 50 years, which we find it just and proper to award at Rs.20,00,000/”, the court observed in the order about caretaker expenses alone, separating it from the medical expenses.

No Scope For Internal Inquiry Or Image Management In POCSO Cases: Karnataka High Court Upholds FIR Against School Staff For Suppressing Abuse

Case Title: Shivaprasad Bhat & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: CRL.P No.9422 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 241

The Karnataka High Court last week dismissed a petition filed by three officials of a private school seeking quashing an FIR registered against them under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, holding that allegations of failure to report a sexual assault, and coercing the minor victim to alter his complaint disclose a prima facie case under Section 21 of the Act. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 241]

The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna laid down in unequivocal terms that the school choosing to remain silent in the matters of child sexual abuse is 'not institutional prudence' but 'statutory delinquency'.

“…Silence in such circumstances is not institutional prudence; it is statutory delinquency. Delay is not administrative convenience; it is a betrayal of the confidence reposed in the institution by every parent who entrusts a child to its care. Any attempt to suppress, modify or camouflage the allegations, instead of reporting them forthwith to the jurisdictional authorities, only emboldens the perpetrator, deepens the trauma of the victim and frustrates the very object for which the POCSO Act was enacted..”, the court held.

Century Club Is 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act, Land Grant By Mysuru Maharaja Amounts To 'Substantial Financing': Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Century Club vs. S. Umapathy & Anr.

Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 1351 of 2025 (GM- RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 242

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the Century Club, a prestigious members-only club situated in the centre of Bengaluru, is a 'Public Authority' under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 242]

The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T has dismissed the appeal filed by the Century Club, upholding the orders of a Single Judge and the Karnataka Information Commission in favour of transparent functioning of the club.

The court primarily reasoned that the Maharaja of Mysuru had earlier financed the institution of the club in the 7.5 acres of public land adjacent to Cubbon Park in 1913.

“…Admittedly, the Century Club is situated on the land measuring 7.5 acre and it was granted by the then Maharaja of Mysuru on 27.10.1913, free of cost, and therefore, it is a non-Government organisation substantially financed by the funds provided by the appropriate Government. The land on which the Century Club is situated belongs to the public and therefore, the Century Club cannot enrich themselves at the cost of the public money. Moreover, the Century Club is not paying any rent or lease or any royalty to the Government and the entire land of 7.5 acre is granted free of cost, which would amount to substantial finance by the Government and the property belongs to the State Government”, the court said.

Children Have Fundamental Right To Play: Karnataka High Court Directs Apartment Association To Reconsider Ban On Football In Play Area

Case Title: Sangeetha Agrawal & Anr. vs. M/S Esteem Gardenia Apartment Owners Association

Case No.: RFA No. 1826 of 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 243

Holding that apartment owners have the right to safe common areas, and children possess the right to recreation, the Karnataka High Court has allowed an appeal filed by a couple against their apartment owners' association. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 243]

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar allowed the appeal from a suit preferred by the couple who are residents of an Apartment Complex in Sahakaranagar, Bengaluru, saying that decorating common stairways with pots create public nuisance and children cannot be deprived of their right to play in common playgrounds.

On the children's right to play in the common playground provided inside the apartment area, the court said:

“…Playing games by children is a fundamental right of children and prohibiting the children from playing takes away their overall health. Hence, it is hereby directed that the defendant/association reconsider its decision, which was taken earlier in this regard…. shall take a decision as to which games are to be allowed and which are not allowed in the play area. However, by stopping one or two games, the children should not be deprived of playing games in the play area. The defendant shall specify the games to be played in the play area after taking confidence of the members of the association”, the court noted in the order.

Driver Can't Be Held Negligent For Sudden Tyre Burst; Vehicle Owner Alone Liable To Pay Compensation: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Manjunatha H.C. vs. Buden Sab & Ors.

Case No.: MFA No. 2959 of 2019 (MV-I)

Case Title: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 244

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a driver cannot be held negligent for a sudden tyre burst, thereby, exonerating the driver and fastening liability solely on the owner of the vehicle. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 244]

“…The manner of accident shows it is a tyre burst which is not in the hands of the driver and he cannot held to be negligent for the sudden burst of the tyre. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts properly and fastened the liability on the driver. The said observation of the Tribunal is not on proper appreciation of facts and is liable to be set aside..”, the court added.

The single judge bench of Justice P Sree Sudha was hearing an appeal filed by the driver of a tractor trailer, who approached the High Court against the Tribunal's order that made him jointly liable to pay the compensation amounting to Rs11.2 lakhs to the family of the deceased.

'Child Held Captive To Criminal Justice System': Karnataka High Court Slams 12-Year Delay, 'Adjournment Culture' In POCSO Trial

Case Title: P v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7053 of 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 245

The Karnataka High Court recently lamented that a child victim of sexual assault was 'held captive' by the legal system for over a decade, while the trial court indulged in a 'culture of repeated adjournments'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 245]

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while disposing of a writ petition in a 2014 POCSO case, directed the Special Court to conclude the proceedings within eight weeks, terming the delay 'deeply disquieting' and 'continued injustice'.

“…The case at hand is not one involving an ordinary offence. It concerns the alleged rape of a child, barely 6 years of age. Every adjournment granted without compelling justification has not merely postponed a hearing; it has prolonged the trauma of a child who entered the criminal justice system as a victim and has remained captive to it for over ten years.Justice delayed, in cases of this nature, does not remain a mere procedural lapse - it assumes the character of a continuing injustice”, the Court observed.

Karnataka High Court Rejects ₹2 Lakh Settlement In Child Drowning Case, Says His Life Can't Be Reduced To Mere Monetary Figure

Case Title: Velu @ Velmayil Somu & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: WP 18978/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 246

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to accept a settlement amount of ₹2 lakh offered by the accused in a case concerning the drowning of a two-and-a-half-year-old child at a construction site, observing that the life of a child “radiant with unfulfilled promise and infinite possibilities” could not be reduced to a monetary figure that failed to reflect the enormity of the loss. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 246]

Justice M. Nagaprasanna subsequently quashed the criminal proceedings only after the accused enhanced the compensation package and agreed to provide sustained financial support to the bereaved family.

While allowing the writ petition filed by the accused persons, the Court observed,

“…The Courts do not merely adjudicate disputes; at times they become silent custodians of equity where law intersects with human suffering. The judicial process cannot restore a life that has been irretrievably lost, nor can any monetary recompense assuage the anguish of parents. Yet, where parties seek closure and the law permits such settlement, the Court bears the solemn obligation of ensuring that justice is not reduced to a mere commercial bargain, but assumes the character of meaningful restitution.”

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against BJP MLA Munirathna Over Allegation Of Forcing People To Wear Party Shawl During Elections

Case Title: Munirathna v. State by Nandini Layout Police Station & Anr.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5045 OF 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)247

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against BJP MLA from Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Munirathna, holding that the allegations of forcing a person to wear the shawl of a particular party during elections do not constitute an offence under Section 171C of IPC [threatening or interfering with voters] since the proceedings were vitiated for want of a complaint by the competent authority under Section 195 of the CrPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar)247]

It was alleged by the complainant, who is a Congress worker, that the petitioner MLA had abducted him during the time of elections in 2024, forced him to wear the shawl of BJP, and took photographs of it to blackmail him further.

The MLA was charged for offences under Sections 506 (criminal intimidation), 149 (unlawful assembly), 363 (kidnapping), and 171C (undue influence at elections) of the IPC, registered at Nandini Lay out Police Station and the proceedings were pending before ACMM Court, Bengaluru.

Karnataka High Court Directs State To Pay ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Homestay Owner 'Illegally Arrested' Over Alleged Rape Of US National

Case Title: Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: CRL.P 7712/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 248

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (July 15) ordered the State to pay Rs 5 Lakhs as compensation for 'illegal arrest' of the owner of a Kodagu Homestay, where a US National was allegedly raped. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 248]

The court however refused to quash the FIR in its entirety at this stage, holding that it was imperative that the investigation should continue.

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed,

“...On Summation of preceding analysis, there is no warrant of interference at the stage of crime. In result, the prayer with regards to the quashing of crime is sans acceptance. Arrest of petitioner is declared illegal. Petitioner becomes entitled to compensation for such illegal arrest. The criminal petition is partly allowed. The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs 5 Lakhs. State shall pay the aforesaid compensation within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The challenge to the FIR in CR no.34 fails as it is imperative that investigation should continue…”

ALSO READ- 'Complaint By Embassy Can't Barter Fundamental Rights': Karnataka High Court On Homestay Owner's Illegal Arrest In US National Rape Case

Karnataka High Court Quashes SC/ST Case Against Minister KH Muniyappa, Says Complainant Cannot Renege On Settlement

Case Title: K.H. Muniyappa & Anr. v. State by Robertsonpet Police Station & Anr.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4935 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 249

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed the criminal proceedings pending against Karnataka Cabinet Minister K.H. Muniyappa, who holds the Food and Civil Supplies portfolio, in connection with an alleged assault incident dating back to 2013, holding that the complainant could not selectively accept a 'mutual' settlement and then file a protest petition against the 'B' Report filed by the police in the Minister's case.

A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna was hearing a petition filed by the Minister and a former Zilla Panchayat Member for quashing the offences against them, punishable under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) r/w Section 34 of the IPC, and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

In an event connected to the 2013 Legislative Assembly Elections, there was reportedly a clash between the petitioner and the complainant, both prominent Congress leaders at the time, since the complainant V Shankar was granted the Kolar Gold Fields Constituency to contest, depriving the daughter of the Minister a seat.

'How Does It Impact You?': Karnataka High Court Questions Kanakapura Bar Body Challenging Site Allotment Infront Of Trial Court Complex

Case Title: The Advocates Bar Association Kanakapura v. State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 21360/2026

Citation:2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 250

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday [July 16] orally questioned the maintainability of a writ petition filed by the Advocates Bar Association of Kanakapura seeking to restrain the State government and local authorities from allotting sites in front of the newly constructed court complex at Kanakapura. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 250]

The court orally observed that if such a petition is entertained, it would lead to a situation where all layouts in front of court complexes across the State would have to be removed.

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observations while hearing a writ petition filed by the Kanakapura Bar Association, which sought direction to the respondents to consider their representations dated May 27 and to refrain from allotting any sites in front of the court complex building situated at Kanakapura in Bengaluru.

“…How does it affect the court premises? If its [layout in front of court complex] construction is started and converted for commercial purpose, how does that impact you? what about government land, they should not form layout there…. It's not necessary.. Then we should remove all the layouts in front of all the court complexes?”, the court orally enquired.

The plea was eventually withdrawn by the Association.

“Classic Potboiler”: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Father-Daughter Duo In ₹5.3-Crore Fake Jobs Racket

Case Title: Kumari Shamshad Begum & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No: CRL.P 9571/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 251

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (July 16) refused to quash an FIR registered against a father-daughter duo accused of orchestrating a ₹5.3-crore fake government jobs racket, observing that the allegations disclosed a “classic potboiler” in which naïve and gullible job aspirants were duped with forged appointment orders and false promises of employment in government departments.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 251]

Dismissing the criminal petition filed by Kumari Shamshad Begum and her father M.A. Mansoor Ahmed, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the Court would not extend its “protective hands” to persons accused of hoodwinking unsuspecting candidates by issuing fake appointment orders.

“...The facts as narrated hereinabove represent the facts obtaining in a classic potboiler. This Court would not extend its protective hands to these petitioners who have hoodwinked naïve, gullible people with fake appointment orders to departments of governments... It is a case of fake in uno, fake in omnibus. Petition is dismissed,” the Court held.

The FIR, registered by the CCB City Police, Bengaluru, alleges that the petitioners cheated job aspirants of ₹5.30 crore by promising appointments in various government departments, including the Railways, Income Tax Department, Irrigation, Health and Social Welfare departments.

₹20,000 Maintenance To Wife & Child Not Excessive For Man Maintaining Mercedes Car: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Shivaprasad Bhat & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: CRL.P No.9422 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 252

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a husband's challenge to an interim maintenance order directing him to pay ₹20,000 per month to his wife and child, observing that a person who can maintain a Mercedes Benz car cannot claim that such an amount is excessive. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 252]

A Division Bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice T.M. Nadaf rejected the husband's contention that the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court was unreasonable.

“...For a person who could maintain Mercedes Benz Car, to pay Rs.20,000/- per month cannot be termed as excessive and since the matter is pending consideration, we without expressing anything on the interim maintenance granted, as respondent wife is not in appeal seeking enhancement of the same, dismiss the Writ Petition, confirming the order, directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- every month to the respondent-wife and child without fail,” the Court observed.

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Activist Over Social Media Posts On Dharmasthala Temple After Undertaking To Maintain Harmony

Case Title: Sri Girish Mattenavar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: CRL.P No. 7620/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 253

The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR registered against social activist Girish Mattenavar, accused of making objectionable social media posts concerning the administration of Shree Kshetra Dharmasthala temple, after he filed an affidavit assuring that he would not post such material and undertook to maintain harmony. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 253]

The temple town recently made headlines, after a sanitation worker claimed that he was coerced to bury hundreds of bodies of women and children between 1995 and 2014.

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna disposed of Mattenavar's plea seeking quashing of a 2026 FIR for offences under Section 353(2) [criminalising circulation of false information to promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will amongst communities] of the BNS, currently pending before the Magistrate Court of Belthangady.

Dowry Harassment In Love Marriage 'Difficult To Believe': Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Husband In Suicide Case

Case Title: Tummala Manoj Kumar V. State Of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7318 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 254

The Karnataka High Court has recently granted bail to a software professional accused of abetting his wife's suicide, observing that allegations of dowry demand become 'difficult to be believed" when the marriage is a love marriage. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 254]

The single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, while allowing the bail petition of accused, noted that the accused and the deceased wife were staying alone in a rented house at Bengaluru, as per the chargesheet. The police investigation also concluded that none of the other family members accused for dowry harassment were residing with the petitioner and the deceased, the court noted while granting bail.

“…As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased is a love marriage, the allegation that the demand was made for payment of dowry at the time of marriage and even after marriage there was a further demand for payment of dowry becomes difficult to be believed. ...the court observed in the order.

Karnataka High Court Clears Release Of 'Boss' Movie, Rejects Actor Darshan's Claim Of Resemblance With Renukaswamy Murder Case

Case Title: MR. DARSHAN SRINIVAS & ANR v. SIRI PRODUCTIONS & ORS

Case No: MFA No. 4257/2026 (CPC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 255

In a setback to Kannada actor Darshan Srinivas and his wife Vijayalakshmi Darshan, the Karnataka High Court on Friday [July 17] dismissed their appeal challenging the vacation of an interim injunction against the release of Kannada film 'BOSS', clearing the way for the movie's theatrical release. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 255]

Darshan claimed that the film draws inspiration from the ongoing Renukaswamy Murder case involving him and would prejudice his trial.

The single-judge bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur observed that there was 'no perversity or illegality' in the trial court's order while vacating the interim stay against the film's release.

“…Having heard the counsel for the respondent and the counsel for appellants, the question that arises is whether there is any perversity or illegality in impugned order passed by trial court, whether it warrants any interference, and if so what order. After having heard both counsels…and after having deliberated on judgements relied by both counsels, this court is of the opinion that there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court vacating the interim stay against the release of the movie. ...Reasons arrived at by the trial court are just and proper. No interference…. Appeal stands dismissed. Any IA filed by petitioner pending pales into insignificance…”, the court noted in the order.

Husband Can't Seek Divorce Merely Because He Has 'Lost Interest' In Marriage: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M v. B

Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4343 Of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 256

Emphasising the sanctity of marriage under Hindu Law, the Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a husband's appeal seeking dissolution of his 21-year-old marriage, observing that one cannot walk away from a marital relationship merely on the ground that they no longer have 'interest' in it. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 256

The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice T M Nadaf, while dismissing the appeal against Family Court's rejection of his divorce application noted that the husband cannot be allowed to 'take advantage of his own wrong'.

“…The person who fell in love with the respondent and fathered a girl child who is now almost a major, has come before the Court stating that he is left with no interest in the marriage and therefore, decree of divorce be granted. The marriage under the Hindu Law is a sacrament and it is not a contract. Once the parties are married, the marriage is for life and one person cannot walk away from the marriage on the ground that he/she is left with no interest in the marriage with the other party”, the court noted in the order.

JJ Act | Media Can't Publish Identity Of Child Victim On Ground That It Was Done In Child's Interest: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Girish Patil & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: CRL.P No. 101182 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 257

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a criminal petition filed by a journalist and an editor of a Newspaper Daily, accused of publishing a news report disclosing the identity of a child victim of assault. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 257

The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde upheld the ongoing prosecution under Section 74(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. While doing so, the court noted that the publication of a child's name or school details is prohibited irrespective of whether the child is a 'victim, witness, or in conflict with law'.

“…No report in any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or audio-visual media or other forms of communication regarding any inquiry or investigation or judicial procedure, shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particular, which may lead to the identification of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection or a child victim or witness of a crime, involved in such matter, under any other law for the time being in force, nor shall the picture of any such child be published”, the court underscored in its order.

Major Unmarried Daughter Can Seek Educational Expenses For Post-Graduation Under Domestic Violence Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Vincent Correa v. Viyola Prathvi Correa

Case No: CRL.RP No. 870/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 258

The Karnataka High Court has held that a father is obligated to bear the educational expenses of his unmarried daughter pursuing postgraduate medical studies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, even after she has attained majority, observing that the parental obligation to provide education does not cease merely because the child has become an adult. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 258]

A Single Judge Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh dismissed a revision petition filed by the father against concurrent orders of the Trial Court and the District & Sessions Court directing him to pay ₹16 lakh towards his daughter's MD Dermatology course fees.

The Court held that educational expenses can be awarded as monetary relief under Section 20 of the DV Act, noting that deprivation of such financial support amounts to "economic abuse" under Section 3(d)(iv) of the Act.

"...While defining economic abuse, the Legislature has also included deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom. It is the custom and practice that everywhere in the world that parents are morally obligated to provide basic amenities, including health and education. If the contention of the petitioner that the child is not entitled to maintenance or educational expenses on attaining majority is accepted, the expression 'in addition to' employed in Section 20(1)(d) would be otiose..."

'Shocking': Karnataka High Court Slams Police For Registering Cow-Theft FIR 2 Years After Animals Went Missing

Case Title: P v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7053 of 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 259

The Karnataka High Court today quashed an FIR registered against a family for the alleged theft of two cows, strongly criticising the police for registering the case nearly two years after the animals had gone missing and describing the episode as a "classic illustration of abuse of criminal justice system". [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 259]

A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing the petition filed by the accused, observed that the police machinery had been completely misused by the complainant, and the police registered the theft complaint without conducting any preliminary inquiry into whether the cows even belonged to the complainant.

Expressing shock at the police action, the Court orally remarked:

“...When somebody is killed, they [police] would be like 'wait, we are searching the cows'... Not saying animals should not be searched, but two years later you register a complaint?”

The petitioners, arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 4, had approached the High Court challenging Crime No. 47/2026 registered at MK Doddi Police Station under Section 303(2) (theft) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Gen Z Lingo Lands Student In Criminal Case: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Over Instagram DM Calling Classmate Beautiful

Case Title: TJ V. State Of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: WP 34898/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 260

The Karnataka High Court has held that a private Instagram chat between two classmates, in which a male student complimented his female classmate using what the Court described as “Gen Z lingo”, does not attract the offences of stalking, voyeurism or outraging the modesty of a woman. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 260]

A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while quashing the FIR registered against the student, also directed the Investigating Officer to immediately return the petitioner's laptop and mobile phone, if they had indeed been seized two years ago pursuant to the registration of the case.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a college student against an FIR lodged over an Instagram direct message (DM) sent to his female classmate complimenting her appearance.

Quashing the proceedings, the Court observed:

“...The petitioner in his zeal communicates to the complainant by DM (direct message) on Instagram with regard to how the complainant looked on a particular day, describing her to be beautiful but in a Gen Z lingo… The trouble crops up to the student. A crime comes to be registered and the career of the petitioner is put to jeopardy… The entire fulcrum of the crime for the aforesaid offences revolves around the chat. The chat is not a public chat; it is a chat between two individuals i.e., petitioner and complainant… Yes, the particular word used is inappropriate but that's the word used by students these days....”

Karnataka High Court Directs Law College To Replace Course Banners Featuring Person In Advocates' Attire, Cites BCI Rules Against Advertisements

Case Title: M/S Bharathi Education Society Trustv. State of Karnataka & Panchayat Development Officer, Grama Panchayat, Bharathinagara

Case No: Writ Petition No. 18384 of 2026 (LB-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 261

The Karnataka High Court has directed Bharathi Education Society Trust to replace course banners featuring the image of a person in advocates' attire, observing that such publicity could violate the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules prohibiting advertisements by individuals. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 261]

A single judge bench of Justice BM Shyam Prasad granted the Trust eight weeks to replace the banners while disposing of a petition challenging a communication dated June 2, 2026, issued by the Panchayat Development Officer of Bharathinagara Grama Panchayat in Mandya district.

“…it is seen that these buntings have the image of a person in what could be the attire prescribed for Advocates. The Bar Council of India Rules would be against any advertisement of an individual...”, the court noted.

The impugned communication stated that, although the Trust was permitted to display banners, they could not feature the image of any individual. It further noted that the Trust had failed to remove the banners despite having been served with a notice.

Vehicle Owner Can't File MACT Claim Against Insurance Company For Damage Caused To Own Car: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Divisional Manager, Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. V. Sri Satish S/o Basavaraj Kurubar

Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 24075 of 2013 (MV-I)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 262

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Motor Vehicle Tribunal granting compensation to a car owner after observing that he had filed a claim against the insurance company in respect of damage caused to his own car which is not permitted under the Section 166 MV Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 262]

The claimant, the owner of a car, alleged that due to the rashness and negligence of the driver, the claimant's car fell into a roadside canal. The lawyer preferred claim against the insurer seeking compensation for the loss he incurred.

Before the Motor Vehicle Tribunal, the insurance company contended that the claimant had approached the wrong forum for compensation for his own car, and that even the insurance policy was not registered in the claimant's name, but in the name of the previous owner.

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Extortion Case Against Lawyer Accused Of Posing As Policeman, Seeking ₹5 Lakh Bribe

Case Title: Gadilinga S/o Dodda Basappa v. State of Karnataka & Sharabhayya B

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 101461 of 2026 (482(CrPC)/528(BNSS))

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 263

The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash an FIR registered against a lawyer for alleged extortion from a labourer to the tune of Rs 5 lakhs by impersonating a police officer, holding that the allegations prima facie disclos commission of a cognizable offence which requires further investigation. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 263]

The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, sitting at Dharwad, noted that the allegations in the Crime registered at Moka Police Station reveal prima facie elements of the

“…contents of the complaint do attract Section 308 of BNS. The reason is the contents of the complaint would indicate that, there was a demand by the petitioners who made a claim that they belong to the Police Department. It is not necessary that the petitioners should be wearing the police uniform at the time when they made the demand. Whether the demand was really made or whether the petitioners were present at the time of the alleged incident, whether the complainant paid ₹2,00,000/- and whether the petitioners refused ₹2,00,000/- are all the matters which require investigation….”, the court said.

Private Apartment Dispute Can't Be Converted Into RPwD Act Complaint Merely Because One Party Has Disability: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Y. Venkateshwara Prasad & Ors. v. The State Commissioner for Persons with Disability & Anr.

Case No: WP No. 13534 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 264

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed proceedings initiated against residents of an apartment complex under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, holding that the statute cannot be invoked to settle mundane civil disputes merely because one of the parties is a person with disability. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 264]

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj was hearing a plea filed by four residents of Adith Bhavan Apartment in K.R. Puram, challenging an order passed by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disability (PwD), issuing a warning to the petitioners based on a complaint filed by a physically disabled co-resident.

“…the authorities constituted under the Act are entrusted with specific statutory functions to address grievances arising from the denial or infringement of rights recognised under the enactment. Their jurisdiction…is confined to matters having a nexus with the rights and protections conferred by the statute. It cannot be expanded to encompass every dispute in which a person with disability is a party, irrespective of whether the dispute bears any connection to the rights created under the Act….”, the court noted in the order.

Order Issuing Notice On Temporary Injunction Plea Not Appealable Under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Suresh Babu J.N. & Ors. v. Jaganmohan & Ors.

Case Nos: MFA No. 3477/2026, MFA No. 3478/2026, MFA No. 3479/2026, MFA No. 3480/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 265

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that an order passed by a trial court, which only issues notice on an application for temporary injunction, would not constitute an appealable order under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 265]

The single judge bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, dismissing a batch of four appeals filed by plaintiffs, held that a trial court order issuing notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC, without granting or refusing the ad-interim injunction, would not be amenable to an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r).

“…when there is a clear remedy available under the Code of Civil Procedure as to what orders could be challenged under the appeal and what cannot be, it is not for this Court to get into the mind of the legislature to infringe into the legislature's forte…Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to infringe into the wisdom of the legislature which conspicuously has not included Rule 3 of Order XXXIX in the appeal provisions provided under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r)”, the court noted in the order.

Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void If First Marriage Subsists: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: K v. M

Case No: Writ Petition No. 107250 of 2025 (GM-CPC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 266

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a marriage solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, during the subsistence of an earlier marriage, is void ab initio, even if the parties are governed by a personal law that permits polygamy. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 266]

The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that such a marriage does not confer the status of a legally wedded wife upon the second spouse.

Noting the above, the court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a woman who sought to be impleaded as a legal representative of her deceased husband in a partition suit.

The court held that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was in violation of Section 4(a) of the Special Marriage Act, which mandates that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage.

“…Once parties voluntarily choose to solemnize their marriage under the Act, they are governed by the mandatory conditions prescribed therein. The statutory requirement that neither party should have a spouse living cannot be diluted by resorting to personal law or any equitable considerations… It is true that Mohammedan personal law, subject to the conditions and limitations recognised therein, permits a Muslim male to contract more than one marriage. Such permissibility, however, operates only within the domain of personal law governing marriages solemnized thereunder…”, the court observed in the order.

Bank Can't Deny Education Loan To Student Solely Due To Parent's Poor CIBIL Score: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sanket & Anr. v. Regional Manager, Karnataka Grameen Bank & Anr.

Case No: WP No. 109488 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 267

Highlighting that the 'creditworthiness of a parent' cannot impede the 'educational aspirations or constitutional rights' of a student, the Karnataka High Court has quashed a rejection letter issued by Karnataka Grameen Bank which denied an educational loan of Rs 12.5 lakhs to a student pursuing B.E. in Artificial Intelligence. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 267]

“…A CIBIL score is merely one indicator of past credit behaviour. It is not a statutory disqualification nor can it become the sole determinative factor while considering an educational loan…”, the single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum sitting at Dharwad noted at the outset.

Observing that loan applications cannot be rejected solely on the ground of the parent's adverse CIBIL score or credit history, the single judge bench noted that such 'inflexible' practises could 'perpetuate economic inequality across generations'

Police Aid To Enforce Injunction Is Continuing Remedy, Not Barred By Res Judicata: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sri. Jawahar Gopal & Anr v. Vishal Baliga D

Case No: Writ Petition No. 6857 of 2026 (GM- CPC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 268

Clarifying the legal position on police assistance for enforcing court orders, the Karnataka High Court has last week held that seeking police aid to implement an interim injunction is a continuing procedural remedy and cannot be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, merely because earlier police protection applications have been filed. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 268]

“…The doctrine of res judicata is founded on the principle that an issue finally adjudicated between the parties should not be reopened. The present application, however, does not invite the Court to re-adjudicate any issue already decided. It proceeds on the allegation that, notwithstanding the subsisting order of temporary injunction, fresh acts of obstruction have rendered the earlier directions ineffective. Every subsequent act of interference with the implementation of an injunction gives rise to a fresh cause for invoking the Court's ancillary jurisdiction. Unless the injunction itself has been vacated, modified, or set aside, the Court's power to secure its enforcement remains for the life of the injunction….”, the court observed in its order.

The single judge bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, hence, dismissed a writ petition filed by a son and his mother who sought to evade enforcement of an injunction, while imposing costs of Rs 50,000 on them for 'abuse of the process of law'.

The writ petition was filed challenging a trial court order requiring the Whitefield Police to assist a party to the suit [plaintiff] to implement interim injunction restraining the aforesaid mother-son duo from interfering with the possession of a property.

'No Coercive Steps' Means No Arrest, Not Stay On Probe: Karnataka High Court Rejects Challenge To ED's Provisional Attachment Order

Case Title: Pavitra Ramanujam v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Case No: WP No. 14309 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 269

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that court orders prohibiting 'coercive steps' are confined to protecting personal liberty, and such orders do not block the statutory process of investigation, including the power of the Enforcement Directorate to attach property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 269]

“…It [no coercive steps] insulates the individual from arrest; it does not eclipse the statutory authority to carry the investigation to its logical culmination or to invoke remedies expressly sanctioned by law, including the institution of prosecution or the initiation of attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act..”, Justice M. Nagaprasanna held.

The Court thus refused to quash a Provisional Attachment Order passed by the ED against a woman, while holding that the petitioner misconstrued an earlier order of the court directing 'no coercive steps'.

“…An order directing 'no coercive steps' or 'no coercive measures' would only mean that the accused or any person in favour of whom such order is passed, shall not be arrested. An order directing not to take any precipitative action is of wide amplitude. It stays or suspends the process of investigation in its entirety which would mean all action pursuant to the said action would remain stayed.”, the court clarified.

Karnataka SIR | High Court Refuses To Extend Timeline For Electoral Roll Revision, Says ECI Should Decide

Case Title: Devanura Mahadeva & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors.

Case No: WP 22330/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 270

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (July 28) refused to interfere with the Election Commission of India's (ECI) timeline for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, holding that the Election Commission is best placed to address procedural issues arising during the exercise. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 270]

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S Hemalekha disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by historian Dr. Ramachandra Guha, veteran activist Devanura Mahadeva, and others, which primarily sought an extension of the SIR timeline in the State.

The court termed the plea as 'premature', holding that the question of whether the timeline is sufficient falls within the 'specialised domain' of the ECI.

Pending Probe Into Pharma Firm's COVID Sanitizer Supply Can't Justify Withholding Payment For Undisputed Drug Supplies: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Sujal Pharma v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: WP 12583/2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 271

The Karnataka High Court recently directed the State Medical Supplies Corporation Limited (KSMSCL) to release a part payment of Rs 1.5 crore to a pharmaceutical firm for drugs supplied during the COVID-19 pandemic, while keeping the balance payment subject to the outcome of an inquiry into alleged irregularities in procurement. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 271]

A single judge bench of Justice M.G.S. Kamal disposed of the petition filed by Sujal Pharma, seeking a direction to consider the representation made by the firm to KSMSCL and for the respondent authorities to pay Rs 3.14 crores along with 18% interest. The payment was in relation to drugs supplied against purchase orders issued in 2021.

“…Respondent-authorities shall release a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- being part payment of the amount towards the purchase orders dated 01.05.2021, 14.05.2021, 20.05.2021 and 06.07.2021 as per Annexure-C series within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order…The affidavit and the copy of the title document of the property as noted above filed by the proprietary of the petitioner is taken on record. The same shall constitute a security/guarantee against the part payment to be made by the respondent-authorities towards the purchase orders dated 01.05.2021, 14.05.2021, 20.05.2021 and 06.07.2021 as per Annexure-C series”, the court concluded in the order.

RTO Can Cancel Vehicle Registration Obtained On False Documents: Karnataka High Court Upholds Action Against Mercedes Car

Case Title: The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Neeraj Kumar Sharma

Case No.: WA No.1203 of 2026

CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 272

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a Single Judge's order that had quashed the seizure of a premium Mercedes Benz AMG G63 suspected of tax evasion using fabricated documents. The single judge had also directed restoration of the vehicle's registration. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 272].

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S Hemalekha however held that the vehicle was registered using fabricated documents and that the transport authorities had acted within their statutory powers.

“…"The respondent[subsequent purchaser] has been unable to produce any material to show that the vehicle in question was registered in his favour on the basis of any sale document executed by either Sri Nihal Ahmed[original purchaser] or HDFC Bank[hypothecated bank]… the State has produced documents, including the sale certificate and the tax invoices purportedly issued by Mercedes-Benz, on the basis of which the vehicle in question was registered in favour of the respondent. If that assertion is correct, the decision of the concerned RTO to cancel the registration cannot be faulted, as the said documents are ex facie false”, the court noted in the order.

For context, one Mr. Nihal Ahmed had originally purchased the vehicle, a Mercedes-AMG G 63, for Rs 1.96 crores, partly financed by the HDFC Bank to the tune of 1.95 crores.

'Nothing NICE About It': Karnataka High Court Revokes Land Acquisition For Bengaluru-Mysuru Corridor, Calls It 'Biggest Scam'

Case Title: Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s AMR Housing Development Corporation & Ors.

Case No.: WA No. 1214/2025 & Connected Matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 273

The Karnataka High Court upheld an order quashing land acquisition proceedings for construction of Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP) observing that there was "nothing nice about the" NICE [Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterpris] project except that farmers were robbed of their lands without being compensated. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 273]

In doing so the court dismissed appeals filed by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise (NICE) and the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), challenging the single judge's order.

The Division Bench of Justice D. K Singh and Justice T.M Nadaf said that the project appears to be 'one of the biggest scams'.

“…The facts as disclosed would clearly suggest that there is nothing nice about the NICE project except that the farmers have been robbed of their lands and livelihood of generations without payment of compensation …We have been informed that out of 111 kms Expressway, the NICE has constructed only 5 kilometres Expressway in the last 25-26 years as per the affidavit dated 28.07.2026 filed by…Additional Chief Secretary, PWD. The NICE is sitting over huge land bank of more than 20,000 acres, and the land and the assets have been alienated and capitalized to its benefit…”, the court pointed out in the order.

It also noted that the above factual aspects denote that the project is in violation of Supreme Court's order in Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority v. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. & Ors (2021) and in violation of the terms of Framework Agreement (FWA) executed between the Karnataka government and the appellant-NICE for implementation of Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP) in 1997.