The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna 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. The order was passed on 1 July 2026.
The bench noted five changed circumstances that warranted a fresh consideration of the bail plea after two earlier rejections by a coordinate bench. Those circumstances were the subsequent filing of a chargesheet in the predicate offence, the grant of bail in the said predicate offence, the filing of a supplementary prosecution complaint against three accused without their arrest, the trial remaining at the pre‑cognisance stage, and the lapse of time since the earlier bail applications.
The court observed that each of these circumstances had arisen after the coordinate bench’s order dated 20 January 2026, thereby satisfying the requirement of a change in situation. It held that the changed circumstances merited acceptance for a fresh bail consideration.
In directing the release, the court ordered the execution of a personal bond of Rs 5,00,000 together with two solvent sureties of the like amount. The bail was made subject to stringent conditions, which were not detailed in the order but were described as necessary to ensure the presence of the accused during trial.
Kumar had first sought bail before the trial court, which was refused. He then approached the High Court in January 2026, where the bail plea was rejected but he was granted liberty to reapply if any changed circumstances emerged. A second application was likewise rejected. For the third time, Kumar returned to the High Court and succeeded.
During the hearing, Senior Counsel Sandesh J Chouta, representing Kumar, argued that there had been no progress in the trial for over three months and highlighted the nine changed circumstances previously cited by the coordinate bench when denying the second bail plea. He contended that the delay and the altered factual matrix justified a fresh look at the bail request.
Opposing the bail, Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath submitted that mere delay in trial could not be a basis for granting bail in economic offences, emphasizing that such cases should not be indulged. He urged the court to adhere to a strict stance on bail for money laundering allegations.
The bench referred to Supreme Court jurisprudence, noting that the Apex Court has granted bail in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 on grounds of delayed trial or changed circumstances. It reiterated that at the bail stage the court must not undertake a detailed examination of evidence or elaborate documentation on merits. The accused retains the right to file successive bail applications, and the court entertaining such applications has a duty to consider the reasons for the earlier rejections and to record fresh grounds that persuaded it to take a different view.
The court also remarked that the voluminous nature of the record—admittedly comprising about 12,000 pages and a large number of witnesses to be examined—did not outweigh the changed circumstances. It observed that the vehement opposition of the learned Additional Solicitor General would have been justified only if no changed circumstance existed.
Regarding the underlying allegations, the court did not delve into the merits of the case. It noted, for background, that the MUDA land allotment case involves claims of illegal allotment of fourteen land sites to favour the wife of the former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the denotification of over three acres of land in Kesar village and its conversion to agricultural land in 2010, and the subsequent allocation of fourteen compensatory parcels in 2021. The purchase price of the property in question was said to be an offset of Rs 300 dating to 1935, with the compensation determined at Rs 3,56,000 in 1997.
The criminal petition was allowed, and Dinesh Kumar was released on bail in the concerned ECIR 24/2025. The order underscores the principle that changed circumstances and procedural delays can warrant a reconsideration of bail, even in cases involving economic offences.