Dismissed¶44

Sri Bangaru Krishna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2026WPHC/60/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP(HC) No. 60 of 2026, High Court of Karnataka, decided 02-07-2026 (NC: 2026:KHC:33034-DB); habeas corpus petition by husband Bangaru Krishna for production of wife Varsha Gowda dismissed; detenue stated she was not illegally detained, resided with parents voluntarily, no valid marriage with petitioner, unwilling to accompany him; request for deletion of photographs/videos and non-harassment noted; police directed to ensure deletion of photographs and videos; filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; Bench: Anu Sivaraman and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.

What did the court decide?

Production of the alleged detenue refused; Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) dismissed. Jurisdictional police directed to take appropriate steps to see that photographs and videos, if any, in the possession of the writ petitioner are deleted. ¶44

Sri Bangaru Krishna Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the alleged detenue, Varsha Gowda (wife of the writ petitioner), was under illegal detention such that a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce her before the Court should issue.

¶37

Court's answer

On interaction with the Court, the alleged detenue stated in clear terms that she is not under any illegal detention and that she is residing with her parents on her own free will and volition; she further stated she had not entered into any valid marriage with the writ petitioner and does not intend to accompany him.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

In view of the detenue's statement, there is no merit in the Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) and the same is dismissed.

¶44

Key takeaways

The jurisdictional police shall take appropriate steps to see that the photographs and videos, if any, in the possession of the writ petitioner are deleted.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus — Petition by husband seeking production of his wife, Varsha Gowda, aged about 24 years. The Division Bench (Anu Sivaraman and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.; judgment per Anu Sivaraman, J.) interacted with the alleged detenue, who stated in clear terms that she was not under any illegal detention and was residing with her parents on her own free will and volition; that she had not entered into any valid marriage with the writ petitioner and did not intend to accompany him; and she requested that photographs and videos, if any, in the petitioner's possession be deleted and that she not be harassed or contacted in future. Holding there was no merit in the Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus), the Court dismissed it and directed the jurisdictional police to take appropriate steps to ensure deletion of such photographs and videos.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33034-DB WPHC No. 60 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶10

WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO.60 OF 2026

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI BANGARU KRISHNA S/O ARUNDEV K. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT BYRAWESHWARA NILAYA 5^TH MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE PARK SIDDARAMESHRA BADAVANE TUMAKURU - 572 101

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶18

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TUMAKURU B.H. ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR TUMAKURU-572 103

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33034-DB WPHC No. 60 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE SHO JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION TUMAKURU-572 102

¶22

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BANGALORE RURAL MILLERS ROAD VASANTH NAGAR BENGALURU-560 052

¶23

THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE DODDABALLAPURA WOMEN POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL-561 203

¶24

M.N. LAKHMANMURTHY S/O M. NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT MUDDANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDAANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

VARSHA GOWDA W/O BANGARU KRISHNA AGED 24 YEARS PRESENTLY AT MUDDANAYAKANHALLI VILLAGE KUNDAANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562 110

¶27

…DETENUE

¶28

(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, SPP A/W SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; DR. PRAJWAL K. ARADHYA, ADV, FOR R6)

¶29

THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PRODUCE THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER BY NAME VARSHA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS BEFORE THIS COURT.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:33034-DB WPHC No. 60 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶37

This Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) is filed by the husband of the alleged detenue seeking to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the wife of the writ petitioner before this Court.

¶38

2. We have heard Shri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri. B.N. Jagadish, learned State Public Prosecutor-I along with Shri. P. Thejesh, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents No.1 to 5; and Dr. Prajwal K. Aradhya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6.

¶39

3. We have also interacted with the alleged detenue. She has informed us in clear terms that she is not under any illegal detention and that she is residing with her parents on her own free will and volition. She has stated that she had not entered into any valid marriage with the writ petitioner and she

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33034-DB WPHC No. 60 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

does not intend to accompany him. She has also requested us

¶43

that the photographs and videos, if any, in the possession of the writ petitioner may be deleted and the writ petitioner may be informed not to harass her or try to contact her any more in the future.

¶44

4. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus), the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶45

The jurisdictional police shall take appropriate steps to see that the photographs and videos, if any, in the possession of the writ petitioner are deleted.

¶46

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶47

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 16 Sl No.: 1

Sri Bangaru Krishna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bangaru Krishna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendranath Singh Vs Sri Manoj Kumar Jain

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri Ramachandra Shetty

Smt Pramila Vs State of Karnataka

Vittal Siddappa Lokapur Vs the State of Karnataka

National Highways Authority of India Vs Smt. Naseema Abdul Hameed

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs M/S Hitachi Energy India Limited