KEERTHI K.S. SON OF SHIVEGOWDA vs PENSION MOHALLA PS — 506/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section U/S,483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 10th June 2026.
Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES
CNR: KAHS010038282026
Filing Number
506/2026
Filing Date
18-May-2026
Registration No
506/2026
Registration Date
18-May-2026
Court
PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN
Judge
975-II Addl. District And Sessions Judge
Decision Date
10-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 17-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
0071
Police Station
PENSION MOHALLA PS
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KEERTHI K.S. SON OF SHIVEGOWDA
Adv. SHRUTHI SHREE H R
Respondent(s)
-
1.PENSION MOHALLA PS (Police Station)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Jun-2026
Orders
The court rejected bail petitions filed by three accused persons in a robbery case (Crime No. 71/2026, Pension Mohalla PS), finding that they committed serious offences including extortion of Rs. 6,500 and gold rings, and recording non-consensual videos with threats demanding Rs. 3,00,000. The court determined that proper arrest procedures and Supreme Court guidelines were followed, strong evidence linked the accused to the crime, and substantial risk existed of witness tampering and evidence destruction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Jun-2026
Disposed
II Addl. District And Sessions Judge
-
06-Jun-2026
Orders
II Addl. District And Sessions Judge
-
05-Jun-2026
Hearing
II Addl. District And Sessions Judge
-
04-Jun-2026
Hearing
II Addl. District And Sessions Judge
-
29-May-2026
Hearing
II Addl. District And Sessions Judge
-
26-May-2026
First Hearing
II Addl. District And Sessions Judge
-
22-May-2026
First Hearing
II Addl. District And Sessions Judge
-
19-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 506/2026
The court rejected bail petitions filed by three accused persons in a robbery case (Crime No. 71/2026, Pension Mohalla PS), finding that they committed serious offences including extortion of Rs. 6,500 and gold rings, and recording non-consensual videos with threats demanding Rs. 3,00,000. The court determined that proper arrest procedures and Supreme Court guidelines were followed, strong evidence linked the accused to the crime, and substantial risk existed of witness tampering and evidence destruction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts