Niyas vs The State by Madikeri Rural P.S Advocate - Public Procecutor — 76/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section U/Sec.483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 06th March 2026.
Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES
CNR: KAKD010002142026
e-Filing Number
27-02-2026
Filing Number
76/2026
Filing Date
27-02-2026
Registration No
76/2026
Registration Date
02-03-2026
Court
PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADIKERI
Judge
363-PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MADIKERI.
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Niyas
Adv. Sachith K H
Sharukh
Respondent(s)
The State by Madikeri Rural P.S Advocate - Public Procecutor
Hearing History
Judge: 363-PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MADIKERI.
Disposed
ORDERS
OBJECTION Criminal
OBJECTION Criminal
OBJECTION Criminal
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 05-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 04-03-2026 | OBJECTION Criminal |
| 03-03-2026 | OBJECTION Criminal |
| 02-03-2026 | OBJECTION Criminal |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kodagu rejected the bail petition filed by two accused persons (Niyas and Sharukh) under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court found prima facie evidence that the petitioners possessed 29.66 grams of MDMA (a narcotic drug) in violation of Section 22 of the NDPS Act 1985, and concluded the offense was grave and heinous with reasonable apprehension of witness tampering and risk of absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kodagu rejected the bail petition filed by two accused persons (Niyas and Sharukh) under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court found prima facie evidence that the petitioners possessed 29.66 grams of MDMA (a narcotic drug) in violation of Section 22 of the NDPS Act 1985, and concluded the offense was grave and heinous with reasonable apprehension of witness tampering and risk of absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts