The Karnataka High Court
Credit DH file Photo
The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday refused bail to former MUDA commissioner G T Dinesh Kumar in a money-laundering case over illegal site allotments.
However, Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav observed that the petitioner was at liberty to approach the high court directly after three months in renewed plea for bail.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had launched the probe based on an FIR registered by the Lokayukta police in a private complaint, in which Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his wife B M Parvathi are also
accused.
The Lokayukta police have filed a ‘B’ report insofar as the allegations against Siddaramaiah and others are concerned. On September 16, 2025, the ED arrested Kumar and he presently in judicial custody.
Kumar’s counsel contended that with the investigation of the predicate offence (by the Lokayukta police) not having concluded, the prosecution ought not to have proceeded to file the prosecution complaint. He also submitted that the petitioner has been singled out, while the other alleged co-accused have not been arrested. He has been in judicial custody since September 16,
2025.
On the other hand, the ED submitted that the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) would end only when the accused is absolved of the allegations on merits in the predicate offence. It further stated that there is substantial evidence in establishing Kumar’s
involvement.
The court perused the prosecution complaint details and cited a table explaining the alleged proceeds of crime pursuant to illegal allotments of 283 sites when Kumar was the commissioner of the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). It also pointed out that of the 48 sites allotted to Chamundeshwari Nagara Sarvodaya Sangha, many were obtained by real estate businessman N Manjunath through
GPA.
Insofar as his long incarceration was concerned, the court said that the Supreme Court judgement in the Manish Sisodia case could be adopted in the present
case.
“..the Supreme Court proceeded to grant bail (Manish Sisodia case) after taking note of the aspect of long incarceration. In the present case as well, having held that the length of incarceration cannot qualify to be long incarceration, as the petitioner has been in custody for 127 days as of now, it would be appropriate to reserve liberty to the petitioner to approach this court after a lapse of three months,” Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said, adding that the prosecution would also have to keep such aspects in mind so as to demonstrate that trial would be concluded within a reasonable
time.
What is the ED case?
In its prosecution complaint (equivalent of a police charge sheet) filed on November 14, the ED gave specific instances of illegal allotments during Kumar’s
tenure.
In one instance, 48 sites were allotted in favour of Chamundeshwari Nagara Sarvodaya Sangha without the approval of the state government. The complaint also stated that of these 48 sites, three were obtained by Kumar’s relatives through sale agreements without paying any money and that his relatives received huge money from N Manjunath, a major beneficiary of illegal allotment.