Bharath Jayarama Das vs The State, Kota P.S, Rep by Public Prosecutor, Udupi — 69/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section U/Sec.482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 06th March 2026.

Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES

CNR: KAUP010002822026

Case disposed

Filing Number

68/2026

Filing Date

19-02-2026

Registration No

69/2026

Registration Date

19-02-2026

Court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, UDUPI

Judge

507-Prl District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

06th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section U/Sec.482

Petitioner(s)

Bharath Jayarama Das

Adv. AKHIL B. HEGDE

Respondent(s)

The State, Kota P.S, Rep by Public Prosecutor, Udupi

Hearing History

Judge: 507-Prl District and Sessions Judge

06-03-2026

Disposed

04-03-2026

ORDERS

26-02-2026

ORDERS

24-02-2026

BAIL

20-02-2026

BAIL

Final Orders / Judgements

06-03-2026
Orders

Summary The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Udupi granted anticipatory bail to petitioner Bharath Jayarama Das, accused of facilitating online cricket betting through the PARKER777 mobile application. The court found that the petitioner's implication rested primarily on an alleged statement by the co-accused (who was already granted bail), custodial interrogation was not indispensable, and investigation could proceed without arrest. The court imposed five conditions including Rs. 50,000 bail bond, cooperation with investigation, non-tampering with witnesses, abstaining from similar offences, and appearing before the IO within 20 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Udupi granted anticipatory bail to petitioner Bharath Jayarama Das, accused of facilitating online cricket betting through the PARKER777 mobile application. The court found that the petitioner's implication rested primarily on an alleged statement by the co-accused (who was already granted bail), custodial interrogation was not indispensable, and investigation could proceed without arrest. The court imposed five conditions including Rs. 50,000 bail bond, cooperation with investigation, non-tampering with witnesses, abstaining from similar offences, and appearing before the IO within 20 days. 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 COURT, UDUPI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case