NISCHAY .G. SON OF GOPALAKRISHNA D.R. vs PENSION MOHALLA PS — 509/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section U/S,482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 10th June 2026.
Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES
CNR: KAHS010038322026
Filing Number
509/2026
Filing Date
18-May-2026
Registration No
509/2026
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.NISCHAY .G. SON OF GOPALAKRISHNA D.R.
Adv. SHRUTHI SHREE H R
Respondent(s)
-
1.PENSION MOHALLA PS (Police Station)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Jun-2026
Orders
The court rejected Nischay G.'s bail petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS in a robbery case (Crime No. 71/2026). The court found that the accused committed a serious offense—extorting ₹6,500 and gold rings while recording a disrobing video to blackmail the victim for ₹3,00,000—with strong incriminating evidence and risk of witness tampering, outweighing procedural arrest compliance arguments. The court balanced the accused's liberty rights against victim protection and investigation integrity. 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. 509/2026
The court rejected Nischay G.'s bail petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS in a robbery case (Crime No. 71/2026). The court found that the accused committed a serious offense—extorting ₹6,500 and gold rings while recording a disrobing video to blackmail the victim for ₹3,00,000—with strong incriminating evidence and risk of witness tampering, outweighing procedural arrest compliance arguments. The court balanced the accused's liberty rights against victim protection and investigation integrity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts