State by Town Police Chikkamagaluru vs Patan @ Bekary Eliyaz — 1448/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 457,380,411,. Status: Issue NBW. Next hearing: 15th April 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KACM020030872016
Next Hearing
15th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1449/2016
Filing Date
21-12-2016
Registration No
1448/2016
Registration Date
21-12-2016
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKAMAGALURU
Judge
215-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
FIR Details
FIR Number
181
Police Station
CHICKMAGALUR TOWN PS
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State by Town Police Chikkamagaluru
Adv. Asst. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Patan @ Bekary Eliyaz
Harish @ Madiga Harish
Saleem @ Kommadi Khalandar
Mallesh @ Bujji
Ragahavendra @ Raghu
Mohana
R Nagendra Kumar
Ajzmath
Noorulla @ Karadapudi Noorulla
Mohiddin Khan
Naveen Kumar
Ramakrishnappa
Srinivasachari @ Nallaseena
Hearing History
Judge: 215-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
Issue NBW
Issue NBW
Issue NBW
Issue NBW
Issue NBW
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Issue NBW | |
| 28-01-2026 | Issue NBW | |
| 23-12-2025 | Issue NBW | |
| 17-11-2025 | Issue NBW | |
| 15-10-2025 | Issue NBW |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Outcome: Accused No. 11 (C.B. Naveen Kumar) was discharged from charges under Section 411 of IPC (receiving stolen property). The court found that the charge sheet lacked essential ingredients of the offense, specifically failing to establish that the accused dishonestly received the gold ingot knowing it was stolen property. Key Reason: While the investigation officer recovered raw gold from the accused based on another accused's voluntary statement, there was no evidence or allegation demonstrating the accused's knowledge that the property was stolen or his dishonest intention in receiving it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Outcome: Accused No. 11 (C.B. Naveen Kumar) was discharged from charges under Section 411 of IPC (receiving stolen property). The court found that the charge sheet lacked essential ingredients of the offense, specifically failing to establish that the accused dishonestly received the gold ingot knowing it was stolen property. Key Reason: While the investigation officer recovered raw gold from the accused based on another accused's voluntary statement, there was no evidence or allegation demonstrating the accused's knowledge that the property was stolen or his dishonest intention in receiving it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts