State of Karnataka, v. Sri. Bharath Jayarama

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2026WA/1718/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Externment order; Karnataka Police Act 1963 Section 59; automatic stay of externment orders; 30-day appeal period; writ appeal GM-POLICE disposed; Special Executive Magistrate Superintendent of Police Udupi; cricket betting; Kota Police Station; question of law left open; impugned order not an authority for staying externment orders; delay condonation I.A.No.1/2026; WP.No.15663/2026; Bharath Jayarama; State of Karnataka appellant; Vibhu Bakhru Chief Justice; K.S. Hemalekha J.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of without being entertained; the question of law on automatic stay of externment orders under Section 59 KPA declared open; impugned order not to be read as authority for the automatic-stay proposition; pending application disposed of. ¶¶44

State of Karnataka, Vs Sri. Bharath Jayarama — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether, as reasoned by the learned Single Judge, there is an automatic stay of all externment orders till the remedy of appeal under Section 59 KPA is availed or the period of 30 days for preferring the appeal is exhausted — i.e., whether the language of Section 59 KPA supports such an automatic stay. +1 more

¶¶39

Court's answer

Prima facie, the language of Section 59 of the KPA does not support the learned Single Judge's view that there is an automatic stay of all externment orders till the appellate remedy is availed or the 30-day period is exhausted; however, the question of law was expressly left open.

¶¶43

Ratio / Principle

I.A.No.1/2026 was allowed and the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal was condoned.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

The impugned order had worked itself out, as its operative part stayed the externment order only till 20.12.2026 and that period had elapsed.ratio¶¶43
The court did not consider it necessary to entertain the present appeal and disposed of it, observing that the question of law stated above is open.ratio¶¶44
The impugned order would not be read as an authority for the proposition that all externment orders are required to be stayed till the period provided for preferring the appeal is exhausted or till the affected person files such an appeal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Division Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice and K.S. Hemalekha, J) — WA No. 1718 of 2026 (GM-POLICE): State of Karnataka, the Special Executive Magistrate/Superintendent of Police, Udupi, and the Sub-Inspector, Kota Police Station appealed against the Single Judge's order dated 26.05.2026 in WP.No.15663/2026, which had stayed an externment order dated 14.05.2026 passed on the respondent (alleged criminal disposition; uncontrolled cricket betting; three cases, one conviction). The Single Judge had proceeded on the view that externment orders stand automatically stayed till the affected person appeals under Section 59, Karnataka Police Act, 1963, or the 30-day window expires. The Bench observed prima facie that the language of Section 59 KPA does not support that view, but since the stay operated only till 20.12.2026 and had elapsed, disposed of the appeal; declared the question of law open and directed that the impugned order not be read as authority for the automatic-stay proposition. Delay of 7 days in filing condoned (I.A.No.1/2026).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:36042-DB WA No. 1718 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1718 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME

¶12

VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001

¶13

THE SPL. EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BANANAJE, UDUPI - 576 101

¶14

Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTA POLICE STATION GILIYARU VILLAGE KOTE POST

¶16

UDUPI TALUK - 576 221

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA)

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI. BHARATH JAYARAMA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O. JAYARAMA DAS

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:36042-DB WA No. 1718 of 2026

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

2-165-1, MOODBITHRI, VARAMBALI BRAHMAVARA TALUK UDUPI - 576 213

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26/05/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.15663/2026 (GM-POLICE) BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL & ETC.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶29

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶32

For the reasons stated in the application, I.A.No.1/2026 is allowed. The delay of 7 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶33

The State has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 26.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.15663/2026 (GM-POLICE). The respondent had filed the said petition impugning an externment order dated 14.05.2026 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Udupi.

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:36042-DB WA No. 1718 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The said externment order is based on a report submitted by

¶37

the Police Sub Inspector, Kota Police Station, alleging that the respondent was of a criminal disposition and despite initiation of numerous legal actions, it had not been possible to control or stop his cricket betting activities. It is stated that three cases are registered against the respondent. He was convicted in one case, and investigations are pending in the other two cases.

¶38

The learned Single Judge had stayed the operation of the externment order on the ground that the respondent was not given sufficient time to avail the remedy of an appeal under Section 59 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 [KPA] . The court reasoned that since the respondent had a remedy of an appeal against the order of externment, the said order was not to be implemented until the respondent availed of the said remedy or the period of 30 days for availing such appellate remedy was exhausted.

¶39

Thus, according to the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, there is an automatic stay of all externment orders till the remedy of the appeal or the period of 30 days for preferring the appeal is exhausted. Prima facie , the language of Section 59 of

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:36042-DB WA No. 1718 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the KPA does not support this view. However, we note that the order has worked itself out as the operative part of the order was to stay the externment order till 20.12.2026 and, the said period has elapsed.

¶44

In view of the above, we do not consider it necessary to entertain the present appeal. The same is disposed of observing that the question of law as stated above is open and the impugned order would not be read as an authority for the proposition that all externment orders are required to be stayed till the period provided for preferring the appeal is exhausted or till the affected person files such an appeal.

¶45

Pending application stands disposed of.

¶46

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶47

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶48

SD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17

State of Karnataka, v. Sri. Bharath Jayarama

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka, v. Sri. Bharath Jayarama

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Murthy Constructions Vs Perfect Electricals

Yashas H P Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C Arasoji Rao Vs the Bangalore District Maintenance and

Smt Muniyamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr Abdul Aleem Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Prabhu Ishwarappa Kalyanshetti, Vs State of Karnataka