RAMANJINAPPA vs HOSKOTE POLICE STATION — 462/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC PETITION

CNR: KABR010012282026

Filing Number

469/2026

Filing Date

04-Mar-2026

Registration No

462/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-2026

Court

PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL

Judge

536-Prl.district And Sessions Judge

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

FIR Details

Police Station

HOSKOTE PS

Year

0

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAMANJINAPPA

    Adv. AMBRISH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HOSKOTE POLICE STATION

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: Ramanjinappa v. Hoskote Police Station (462/2026) The court granted anticipatory bail to 65-year-old Ramanjinappa, accused of illegally extracting sand/soil from government land causing ₹15,75,600 loss, under sections of BNS and mining/mineral regulations. The court found the offences non-capital and compoundable, with no criminal antecedents against the petitioner, and determined that bail conditions could adequately address prosecution concerns about witness tampering and flight risk. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Order

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Objection

    Prl.district And Sessions Judge

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 04-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 462/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Ramanjinappa v. Hoskote Police Station (462/2026) The court granted anticipatory bail to 65-year-old Ramanjinappa, accused of illegally extracting sand/soil from government land causing ₹15,75,600 loss, under sections of BNS and mining/mineral regulations. The court found the offences non-capital and compoundable, with no criminal antecedents against the petitioner, and determined that bail conditions could adequately address prosecution concerns about witness tampering and flight risk. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case