Krishna Poojary vs The State, S.H.O, Malpe P.S, Rep by Public Prosecutor, Udupi — 64/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section U/Sec.482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 06th March 2026.
Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES
CNR: KAUP010002592026
Filing Number
63/2026
Filing Date
16-Feb-2026
Registration No
64/2026
Registration Date
16-Feb-2026
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UDUPI
Judge
507-Prl District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
06-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 12-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Krishna Poojary
Adv. VIJAYA V POOJARY
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State, S.H.O, Malpe P.S, Rep by Public Prosecutor, Udupi
-
2.Sulochana
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Mar-2026
OrdersView PDF
Summary The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Udupi allowed the anticipatory bail petition of Krishna Poojary, who was accused under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and various BNS sections involving allegations of financial fraud, threats, and outraging of modesty. The court found sufficient clouds over the truth of allegations, noting they appeared rooted in a financial dispute over a loan rather than genuine atrocity offenses, and concluded that despite the statutory bar on bail under the SC/ST Act, granting bail would advance justice. The petitioner was granted bail on Rs. 5,00,000 with standard conditions including cooperation with investigation and appearance before the IO within 20 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Mar-2026
Disposed
Prl District and Sessions Judge
-
04-Mar-2026
Orders
Prl District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Feb-2026
Orders
Prl District and Sessions Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
Bail
Prl District and Sessions Judge
-
17-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 64/2026
Summary The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Udupi allowed the anticipatory bail petition of Krishna Poojary, who was accused under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and various BNS sections involving allegations of financial fraud, threats, and outraging of modesty. The court found sufficient clouds over the truth of allegations, noting they appeared rooted in a financial dispute over a loan rather than genuine atrocity offenses, and concluded that despite the statutory bar on bail under the SC/ST Act, granting bail would advance justice. The petitioner was granted bail on Rs. 5,00,000 with standard conditions including cooperation with investigation and appearance before the IO within 20 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts