The State Rep. by C.P.I. Kaup Circle Kaup. vs Subhash Bhimrao Kale Advocate - ABUBAKKAR SIDIQ M — 5/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 395. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 23rd April 2026.
SC - SESSION CASES
CNR: KAUP010002082019
Next Hearing
23rd April 2026
Filing Number
5/2019
Filing Date
30-01-2019
Registration No
5/2019
Registration Date
30-01-2019
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UDUPI
Judge
507-Prl District and Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State Rep. by C.P.I. Kaup Circle Kaup.
Adv. P.P.Udupi.
Respondent(s)
Subhash Bhimrao Kale Advocate - ABUBAKKAR SIDIQ M
Shankara Lagaman Kale
Adv. ABUBAKKAR SIDIQ M
Subhash Bhaskar Kale
Adv. ABUBAKKAR SIDIQ M
Kalidasa Bhaskar Kale
Adv. ABUBAKKAR SIDIQ M
Sunil Nana Kale
Adv. B RAVINDRA DEVADIGA
Hearing History
Judge: 507-Prl District and Sessions Judge
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 05-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 25-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 05-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 29-10-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a Sessions Case No. 5/2019 from the Principal District and Sessions Court, Udupi (Karnataka), dated 25-02-2026. The court examined witness testimony under CrPC Section 299 regarding a jewellery shop burglary where approximately 8 grams of gold jewelry and 250 grams of silver jewelry were stolen. The witness testified that 5 suspects were arrested about 6 months after the incident, but stated he could not identify them as the accused were presented in an unidentified manner. The court rejected the identification evidence due to improper identification procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a Sessions Case No. 5/2019 from the Principal District and Sessions Court, Udupi (Karnataka), dated 25-02-2026. The court examined witness testimony under CrPC Section 299 regarding a jewellery shop burglary where approximately 8 grams of gold jewelry and 250 grams of silver jewelry were stolen. The witness testified that 5 suspects were arrested about 6 months after the incident, but stated he could not identify them as the accused were presented in an unidentified manner. The court rejected the identification evidence due to improper identification procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts