Reserved on : 03.02.2026 Pronounced on : 04.03.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.1421 OF 2026 (GM – RES)

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP)

AND:

1 . SMT. PAVITHRA GOWDA D/O. PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, NO.808, 24^TH CROSS, KENCHENAHALLI ROAD, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098.

2 . NAGARAJA R., S/O RACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NO.432, A AND B BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA, MYSURU – 570 022.

3 . LAKSHMAN M., S/O MARIYAPPA C., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.1354, 9^TH MAIN, R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 040.

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

(SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP TO ASSIST THE COURT)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023/READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2026 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-57) AT BENGALURU, IN SPECIAL CASE NO.1319 OF 2024 (ANNEXURE-

A) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner/State of Karnataka in this writ petition is calling in question an order dated 12-01-2026 passed by the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C.No.1319 of 2024 by which the respondents are permitted to have home food once a week.

2. Heard Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the petitioner, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor who was called upon to assist the Court.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

The 1^st respondent is accused No.1 in S.C.No.1319 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC inter alia. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the matter before the concerned Court. Respondent/accused No.1 and several other accused place a request before the concerned Court to permit them to get home food and other amenities such as newspapers, radio, books, etc.. The concerned Court passes an order directing the prison authorities to allow home food to be given to the respondents. An intimation to this regard is also sent to the concerned jail authorities. The state - petitioner does not implement the said order but seeks a clarification from the concerned court stating that permitting home food to the respondent accused persons would result in chaos as it would be very difficult for the prison authorities to check the quality and safety of the food. In the clarification, the petitioners also disclose the facilities existing in the prisons to meet the dietary requirements of the respondents as provided under the law. The concerned Court then passes the impugned order on the clarification sought by the petitioner, permitting the respondents - accused Nos.1, 11 and 12 to receive home food once a week and in other circumstances as and when advised by the doctor without any clarification. It is this order that rejects the clarification of the petitioner that has driven the state -

petitioner to approach this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N. Jagadeesha representing the State/petitioner would vehemently contend that the Apex Court has clearly directed that no special treatment should be given to any of the accused involved in the subject special case who are now under trial prisoners. He would further submit that by a vague and bald order, the concerned Court has allowed the request of accused Nos. 1,