Manappa S/o Mariyappa Gowdra vs State through Kanakagiri Police Station Rep by PP Gangavathi — 69/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita Section 189.2,191.2,191.3,329.4,115.2,118.1,74,352,351,190. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 28th March 2026.

Case disposed

Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES

CNR: KAKP420002802026

e-Filing Number

22-03-2026

Filing Number

69/2026

Filing Date

24-Mar-2026

Registration No

69/2026

Registration Date

24-Mar-2026

Court

ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL SITTING AT GANGAWATI

Judge

1406-I Addl. District And Sessions Judge, Koppal Sitting At Gangavathi

Decision Date

28-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

Last updated 03-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

38

Police Station

KANAKAGIRI PS

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita Section 189.2,191.2,191.3,329.4,115.2,118.1,74,352,351,190

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Manappa S/o Mariyappa Gowdra

    Adv. Raghavendra T Bidarkar

  2. 2.Smt. Nagamma w/o Manappa Gowdra

    Adv. Raghavendra T Bidarkar

  3. 3.Hanumesh alias Hanumanha s/o Manap Gowdra

    Adv. Raghavendra T Bidarkar

  4. 4.Viresha alias Eranna s/o Manap Gowdra

    Adv. Shrikanta joshi

  5. 5.Mare Gowda s/o Manappa Gowdra

    Adv. Raghavendra T Bidarkar

  6. 6.Umesha s/o Manappa Gowdra

    Adv. Raghavendra T Bidarkar

  7. 7.Yamanura s/o Manappa Gowdra

    Adv. Raghavendra T Bidarkar

  8. 8.Smt. Ratnamma w/o Viresh alias Eranna

    Adv. Raghavendra T Bidarkar

  9. 9.Smt. Chaitra w/o Hanumanth Gowdra

    Adv. Shrikanta joshi

  10. 10.Smt. Muttamma w/o Maregowda

    Adv. Raghavendra T Bidarkar

  11. 11.Smt. Ambika w/o Umesha

    Adv. Raghavendra T Bidarkar

  12. 12.Smt. Laxmi alias Dyamavva w/o Yamanur

    Adv. Shrikanta joshi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State through Kanakagiri Police Station Rep by PP (Public Prosecutor) Gangavathi

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 28-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: 69/2026 Court Decision: The court GRANTED anticipatory bail to all 12 accused persons (Manappa, Nagamma, Hanumesh, Viresha, Mare Gowda, Umesha, Yamanura, Ratnamma, Chaitra, Muttamma, Ambika, and Laxmi) in Crime No. 38/2026 registered at Kanakagiri Police Station. Key Reasoning: The judge found that while the charges involve unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation, and assault, they are not punishable by death or life imprisonment. Critical weaknesses in the prosecution's case included: a two-day delay in filing the complaint without proper explanation, lack of specific overt acts attributed to each accused, and a counter-complaint filed by one accused against the complainant, indicating disputed facts requiring investigation and trial. The court applied the principle that bail should not be punishment but rather ensure court attendance and prevent evidence tampering—concerns addressed through stringent conditions. Bail Conditions: Rs. 50,000 personal bond each with surety; no witness tampering; cooperation with investigation; monthly police station attendance; court appearance at all hearings; prohibition on similar offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    I Addl. District And Sessions Judge, Koppal Sitting At Gangavathi

  4. 27-Mar-2026

    Orders

    I Addl. District And Sessions Judge, Koppal Sitting At Gangavathi

  5. 26-Mar-2026

    Objections

    I Addl. District And Sessions Judge, Koppal Sitting At Gangavathi

  6. 25-Mar-2026

    Objections

    I Addl. District And Sessions Judge, Koppal Sitting At Gangavathi

  7. 24-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 24-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 69/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 69/2026 Court Decision: The court GRANTED anticipatory bail to all 12 accused persons (Manappa, Nagamma, Hanumesh, Viresha, Mare Gowda, Umesha, Yamanura, Ratnamma, Chaitra, Muttamma, Ambika, and Laxmi) in Crime No. 38/2026 registered at Kanakagiri Police Station. Key Reasoning: The judge found that while the charges involve unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation, and assault, they are not punishable by death or life imprisonment. Critical weaknesses in the prosecution's case included: a two-day delay in filing the complaint without proper explanation, lack of specific overt acts attributed to each accused, and a counter-complaint filed by one accused against the complainant, indicating disputed facts requiring investigation and trial. The court applied the principle that bail should not be punishment but rather ensure court attendance and prevent evidence tampering—concerns addressed through stringent conditions. Bail Conditions: Rs. 50,000 personal bond each with surety; no witness tampering; cooperation with investigation; monthly police station attendance; court appearance at all hearings; prohibition on similar offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case