Sandeep S/o Siddappa Gherade vs The State Of Karnataka R/by PI Bagalkote Town PS — 125/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section U/sec. 483. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 10th March 2026.

Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES

CNR: KABK010008842026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

25-02-2026

Filing Number

125/2026

Filing Date

26-02-2026

Registration No

125/2026

Registration Date

26-02-2026

Court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT

Judge

107-DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT

Decision Date

10th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section U/sec. 483

Petitioner(s)

Sandeep S/o Siddappa Gherade

Adv. VISHAL LAMANI

Respondent(s)

The State Of Karnataka R/by PI Bagalkote Town PS (Police Station)

Hearing History

Judge: 107-DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT

10-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

ORDER

06-03-2026

ARGUMENTES

04-03-2026

ARGUMENTES

27-02-2026

OBJECTIONS

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
Orders

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote rejected the bail petition filed by Sandeep Gherade under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court found that the petitioner's involvement in a communal stone-pelting incident on February 20, 2026—a retaliatory act following an earlier incident on February 19—was serious and required restraint, noting the large-scale police deployment and public disturbance caused. The court reasoned that granting bail during the ongoing investigation would send a wrong message to society and risk further communal violence between community groups. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote rejected the bail petition filed by Sandeep Gherade under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court found that the petitioner's involvement in a communal stone-pelting incident on February 20, 2026—a retaliatory act following an earlier incident on February 19—was serious and required restraint, noting the large-scale police deployment and public disturbance caused. The court reasoned that granting bail during the ongoing investigation would send a wrong message to society and risk further communal violence between community groups. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case