STATE BY NAZARBAD POLICE STATION vs RAVIKUMAR — 369/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section U/S 370. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.

SC - SESSION CASES

CNR: KAMS010075022022

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

10th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

369/2022

Filing Date

19-10-2022

Registration No

369/2022

Registration Date

20-10-2022

Court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU

Judge

428-III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU

FIR Details

FIR Number

119

Police Station

NAZARBAD PS

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section U/S 370
immoral traffic prevention act Section U/S 3, 4, 5, 6

Petitioner(s)

STATE BY NAZARBAD POLICE STATION

Adv. PP.,MYSURU

Respondent(s)

RAVIKUMAR

ABDUL REHAMAN

Hearing History

Judge: 428-III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU

02-04-2026

EVIDENCE

07-03-2026

EVIDENCE

10-02-2026

EVIDENCE

12-01-2026

EVIDENCE

12-12-2025

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

09-08-2024
Deposition
25-10-2024
Deposition
04-04-2025
Deposition
20-06-2025
Deposition

Summary: This is a cross-examination order from the District Sessions Court in Mysore (Case SC 369/2022) involving witness examination dated 20.06.2025. The witness (PW.5) significantly retracted and denied major portions of his earlier statement, claiming he did not sign documents knowingly, was coerced by police, never visited the alleged location, and cannot identify the accused. The court recorded multiple contradictions in the witness's testimony regarding signatures, the raid details, and seized items, ultimately treating him as a hostile witness per the public prosecutor's request. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: This is a cross-examination order from the District Sessions Court in Mysore (Case SC 369/2022) involving witness examination dated 20.06.2025. The witness (PW.5) significantly retracted and denied major portions of his earlier statement, claiming he did not sign documents knowingly, was coerced by police, never visited the alleged location, and cannot identify the accused. The court recorded multiple contradictions in the witness's testimony regarding signatures, the raid details, and seized items, ultimately treating him as a hostile witness per the public prosecutor's request. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case