Malappa Urf Mallikarjun Bhimappa Gouravvagol vs The State of Karnataka, R.by Babaleshwar P.S. Advocate - P P — 471/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 26th May 2026.
Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES
CNR: KAVP010028352026
Filing Number
465/2026
Filing Date
02-May-2026
Registration No
471/2026
Registration Date
04-May-2026
Court
PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA
Judge
190-Prl. District And Sessions Judge
Decision Date
26-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 17-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
88
Police Station
BABALESWARA PS
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Malappa Urf Mallikarjun Bhimappa Gouravvagol
Adv. Kasar Nekulal Babu.
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State of Karnataka, R.by Babaleshwar P.S. Advocate - P P
-
2.Santosh Sidraya Kundaragi
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
26-May-2026
Order
The court rejected the bail petition of Malappa Urf Mallikarjun Bhimappa Gouravvagol (Accused No. 4) in a murder case arising from a family property dispute. Though the petitioner's name did not appear in the original FIR, the court found prima facie material implicating him in the alleged criminal conspiracy based on investigation disclosures, and emphasized the gravity of the offense (11 injuries with death by decapitation), existence of eyewitnesses, ongoing investigation, and risk of witness tampering justified continued detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-May-2026
Disposed
Prl. District And Sessions Judge
-
22-May-2026
Orders
Prl. District And Sessions Judge
-
18-May-2026
Hearing
Prl. District And Sessions Judge
-
12-May-2026
Objection
Prl. District And Sessions Judge
-
08-May-2026
Notice
Prl. District And Sessions Judge
-
05-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 471/2026
The court rejected the bail petition of Malappa Urf Mallikarjun Bhimappa Gouravvagol (Accused No. 4) in a murder case arising from a family property dispute. Though the petitioner's name did not appear in the original FIR, the court found prima facie material implicating him in the alleged criminal conspiracy based on investigation disclosures, and emphasized the gravity of the offense (11 injuries with death by decapitation), existence of eyewitnesses, ongoing investigation, and risk of witness tampering justified continued detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts