Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Former MUDA Commissioner In Money Laundering Case

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday granted bail to former Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) Commissioner G.T. Dinesh Kumar in a money laundering case linked to the alleged MUDA site allotment scam.

The court held that while delay in trial by itself is not a ground for granting bail, the petitioner had shown several changed circumstances that justified the relief.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order in proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The court noted that the prosecution records run to about 12,000 pages and that a large number of witnesses remain to be examined.

"The documents run to about 12000 pages is an admitted fact and a plethora of witnesses to be examined is again an admitted fact. The vehement opposition of the learned Additional Solicitor General would have merited acceptance if there was no changed circumstance at all. As contended by him and also settled principle of law that merely because trial would take a long time it would not give a right to the accused to seek bail.", the court noted.

The court directed Dinesh Kumar to execute a personal bond of ₹5 lakh with two solvent sureties. It also restrained him from influencing witnesses or hampering the proceedings and directed him to appear before the trial court on every hearing date unless exempted.

The case stems from a private complaint filed by RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna alleging irregularities in the allotment of MUDA sites, including allegations against the then Chief Minister of Karnataka.

During the investigation into the predicate offence, a few of the accused were dropped from the array of accused, while other accused, including Dinesh Kumar, remained in the case.

The ED thereafter registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and filed its prosecution complaint on November 14, 2025, arraigning Dinesh Kumar as the sole accused in the ECIR at that stage.

His earlier bail plea was rejected by the High Court on January 20, 2026, with liberty to renew the request if there were changed circumstances or the trial failed to progress. He was later granted bail in the predicate offence on March 16, 2026.

Referring to Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and other Supreme Court decisions, the court observed that constitutional courts may grant bail where prolonged incarceration and delayed trial infringe the right to personal liberty.

It also observed that an accused may file successive bail applications upon changed circumstances and that a detailed examination of the evidence should not be undertaken at the stage of considering bail.

"The Apex Court, even in cases of offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has chosen to grant bail on grounds of delayed trial or on changed circumstances. The Apex Court holds that at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation on merits should not be undertaken. The accused has a right to file successive applications for grant of bail.", the court observed.

The ED opposed the plea, contending that delay in trial alone could not justify bail. The court, however, held that the case involved several changed circumstances. These included Dinesh Kumar's release on bail in the predicate offence, the filing of a supplementary prosecution complaint arraigning three additional accused who were not arrested, and subsequent developments in the proceedings after the liberty granted by the coordinate bench in the earlier bail order.

"Supplementary prosecution complaint is filed by the Enforcement Directorate bringing in three other accused – accused Nos. 2 to 4. This is on 28-03-2026. The Enforcement Directorate has not chosen to arrest them and the contention is that the petitioner stands on the same footing as accused Nos. 2 to 4. This is the third changed circumstance. The concerned Court on hearing the ECIR has taken cognizance on the prosecution complaint on 24-04-2026. This is the fourth changed circumstance.", the court noted allowing the bail plea

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sandesh J. Chouta, Advocate Sunil Kumar 

For Respondent: K. Arvind Kamath, ASG, Madhu Rao, SPL. PP