Gafarsaab So Mohammad Hanif vs Narasing So Pundalik Kale Advocate - Lagali Raimohan Suresh — 65/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 04th August 2026.

Arguments Next hearing 04-Aug-2026 this date has passed

CRL.A - CRIMINAL APPEAL

CNR: KAVP010030552026

Filing Number

66/2026

Filing Date

22-May-2026

Registration No

65/2026

Registration Date

25-May-2026

Court

PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA

Judge

190-Prl. District And Sessions Judge

Last updated 17-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Gafarsaab So Mohammad Hanif

    Adv. Pande Raghunandan Keshavprasad

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Narasing So Pundalik Kale Advocate - Lagali Raimohan Suresh

Case History

  1. 04-Aug-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 11-Jul-2026

    Arguments

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  3. 25-Jun-2026

    Referred To Lok Adalath

    Prl. District And Sessions Judge

  4. 26-May-2026

    Order

  5. 26-May-2026

    Order

  6. 26-May-2026

    Order

    Case Summary: Crl. Appl. No. 65/2026 The appellate court allowed the interim application filed by appellant Gafarsaab So Mohammad Hanif and suspended the sentence imposed by the trial court pending disposal of the appeal. The court found that the appellant raised substantial and arguable questions on facts and law, and that suspending the sentence was necessary to preserve the right of appeal. Suspension was granted subject to conditions: the appellant must execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety and deposit 30% of the fine amount within 30 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  7. 26-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 22-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 65/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Crl. Appl. No. 65/2026 The appellate court allowed the interim application filed by appellant Gafarsaab So Mohammad Hanif and suspended the sentence imposed by the trial court pending disposal of the appeal. The court found that the appellant raised substantial and arguable questions on facts and law, and that suspending the sentence was necessary to preserve the right of appeal. Suspension was granted subject to conditions: the appellant must execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety and deposit 30% of the fine amount within 30 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case