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-Feb-2026
Registration No
76/2026
Registration Date
02-Mar-2026
Court
PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADIKERI
Judge
363-Prl District And Sessions Judge Madikeri.
Decision Date
06-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 12-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Niyas
Adv. Sachith K H
-
2.Sharukh
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State by Madikeri Rural P.S Advocate - Public Procecutor
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Mar-2026
OrdersView PDF
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.
-
06-Mar-2026
Disposed
Prl District And Sessions Judge Madikeri.
-
05-Mar-2026
Orders
Prl District And Sessions Judge Madikeri.
-
04-Mar-2026
Objection Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Madikeri.
-
03-Mar-2026
Objection Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Madikeri.
-
02-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
27-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 76/2026
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.
Explore other courts