SHO, Padubidri P.S. vs Sandeep Kulal — 742/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section U/S 385. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 12th March 2026.

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KAUP020016382024

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

12th March 2026

Filing Number

742/2024

Filing Date

28-05-2024

Registration No

742/2024

Registration Date

28-05-2024

Court

PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, UDUPI

Judge

602-I Addl Sr Civil Judge and ACJM Udupi

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section U/S 385

Petitioner(s)

SHO (Station House Officer), Padubidri P.S.

Adv. Asst. Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

Sandeep Kulal

Esha @ Esha Kumar

Breshan D-souza

Bhagavan Das

Shailesh Bangera

Vijayendra

Guru

Anil Kumar

Ramesh

Harish

Hearing History

Judge: 602-I Addl Sr Civil Judge and ACJM Udupi

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE

24-01-2026

EVIDENCE

18-12-2025

EVIDENCE

15-11-2025

EVIDENCE

16-10-2025

APPEARANCE OF ACCUSSED

Interim Orders

15-11-2025
Deposition
15-11-2025
Deposition
06-03-2026
Deposition

Summary This is a Kannada language court order (Case No. CC:742/2024) from the Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJMs Court, Udupi, dated March 6, 2026. The court examined witness Jayaram regarding an extortion case involving allegations that the accused obtained 7 lakhs rupees from the complainant by threatening to defame him. The court found the witness testimony to be unreliable and contradictory, noting inconsistencies in the witness's account of events from 2014 and determining that the witness was providing false evidence to assist the accused. The court declined to grant credibility to the witness's testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary This is a Kannada language court order (Case No. CC:742/2024) from the Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJMs Court, Udupi, dated March 6, 2026. The court examined witness Jayaram regarding an extortion case involving allegations that the accused obtained 7 lakhs rupees from the complainant by threatening to defame him. The court found the witness testimony to be unreliable and contradictory, noting inconsistencies in the witness's account of events from 2014 and determining that the witness was providing false evidence to assist the accused. The court declined to grant credibility to the witness's testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, UDUPI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case