THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/by Yadobha S/o. Lingappa Harikantra vs A-1 Mahammad Sadiq S/o. Babajan Lohar — 405/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338,304(A). Status: Bailable Warrant. Next hearing: 18th July 2026.

Bailable Warrant Next hearing 18-Jul-2026 this date has passed

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KAUK210012952024

e-Filing Number

05-09-2024

Filing Number

405/2024

Filing Date

10-Sep-2024

Registration No

405/2024

Registration Date

10-Sep-2024

Court

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANKOLA

Judge

1334-Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

0079

Police Station

ANKOLA PS

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338,304(A)
Motor Vehicles Act Section 187,180(5),146,196

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/by Yadobha S/o. Lingappa Harikantra

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.A-1 Mahammad Sadiq S/o. Babajan Lohar

  2. 2.A-2 Ashraf G U S/o. Usman

Case History

  1. 18-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 05-Jun-2026

    Bailable Warrant

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  4. 21-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  5. 20-Dec-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  6. 20-Dec-2025

    DepositionView PDF

    Case 405/2024 Summary Court: JMFC, Ankola Date: 20-12-2025 A witness (Jeevan Tandel, 35, fisherman) testified regarding a vehicular accident on 24-04-2024 involving a two-wheeler. During cross-examination by the defense counsel, the witness's credibility was significantly challenged. The defense argued that the witness signed blank papers without reading them, the FIR documents were fabricated with false signatures, and photographs (Exhibits 4-6, 8-14) were taken without proper authorization or clear evidentiary purpose. The defense further contended that the accident scene investigation was compromised, the witness provided inconsistent statements about road conditions and vehicle speed, and suggested the police fabricated evidence to support a false narrative against the accused (A-1 Mahammad Sadiq and A-2 Ashraf G U). The court recorded the witness's examination and cross-examination statements. The case proceedings continue. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  7. 20-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  8. 28-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  9. 29-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  10. 30-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  11. 06-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  12. 30-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  13. 17-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  14. 07-May-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  15. 04-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  16. 04-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  17. 23-Jan-2025

    PleaView PDF

  18. 23-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  19. 17-Jan-2025

    N.B.W.

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  20. 04-Dec-2024

    PleaView PDF

  21. 04-Dec-2024

    OrdersView PDF

  22. 04-Dec-2024

    N.B.W.

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  23. 25-Oct-2024

    Summons

    Addl. CIVIL Judge And JMFC Ankola

  24. 10-Sep-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 10-Sep-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 405/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case 405/2024 Summary Court: JMFC, Ankola Date: 20-12-2025 A witness (Jeevan Tandel, 35, fisherman) testified regarding a vehicular accident on 24-04-2024 involving a two-wheeler. During cross-examination by the defense counsel, the witness's credibility was significantly challenged. The defense argued that the witness signed blank papers without reading them, the FIR documents were fabricated with false signatures, and photographs (Exhibits 4-6, 8-14) were taken without proper authorization or clear evidentiary purpose. The defense further contended that the accident scene investigation was compromised, the witness provided inconsistent statements about road conditions and vehicle speed, and suggested the police fabricated evidence to support a false narrative against the accused (A-1 Mahammad Sadiq and A-2 Ashraf G U). The court recorded the witness's examination and cross-examination statements. The case proceedings continue. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case