SHO Karkala Town PS vs ANANDA ACHARYA — 1699/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 281,106. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 09th March 2026.

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: KAUP210026052025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

18-11-2025

Filing Number

1699/2025

Filing Date

18-11-2025

Registration No

1699/2025

Registration Date

18-11-2025

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC , KARKALA

Judge

512-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

Decision Date

09th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 281,106

Petitioner(s)

SHO (Station House Officer) Karkala Town PS (Police Station)

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

ANANDA ACHARYA

Hearing History

Judge: 512-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

09-03-2026

Disposed

06-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

04-03-2026

ARGUMENTS-CRIMINAL

02-03-2026

EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL

16-02-2026

EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL

Interim Orders

02-02-2026
Plea
16-02-2026
Deposition
04-03-2026
Deposition

The witness (Rajendra, 48 years old, farmer from Neere Bailuru) testified that he could not identify the accused in court, had no knowledge of the accident details, did not witness the incident, and did not provide any statement to police. The court found the witness's testimony lacks credibility as he could not recognize key details about the accident case, including the vehicles involved or its cause. The cross-examination by the accused's counsel did not yield any additional information, and the court noted the witness provided inconsistent accounts regarding his involvement in the site inspection conducted on 05-08-2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The witness (Rajendra, 48 years old, farmer from Neere Bailuru) testified that he could not identify the accused in court, had no knowledge of the accident details, did not witness the incident, and did not provide any statement to police. The court found the witness's testimony lacks credibility as he could not recognize key details about the accident case, including the vehicles involved or its cause. The cross-examination by the accused's counsel did not yield any additional information, and the court noted the witness provided inconsistent accounts regarding his involvement in the site inspection conducted on 05-08-2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC , KARKALA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case