NA Tippeswamy S/o N Anjaneya, Age 43 Yrs, occ FDA Thasil office vs Lokayukta PS Yadgiri — 96/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section U/Sec,482,of,BNSS,2023. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED/GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 24th March 2026.
Crl.Misc. - CRIMINAL MISC.CASES
CNR: KAYG010005642026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
95/2026
Filing Date
05-03-2026
Registration No
96/2026
Registration Date
06-03-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR
Judge
936-PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE YADGIR
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED/GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
FIR Details
FIR Number
0006
Police Station
YADGIR LOKAYUKTHA PS
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NA Tippeswamy S/o N Anjaneya, Age 43 Yrs, occ FDA Thasil office
Adv. V.R.STAVARMATH
Respondent(s)
Lokayukta PS (Police Station) Yadgiri
Hearing History
Judge: 936-PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE YADGIR
Disposed
ORDERS-CRIMINAL
Objection
Objection
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-03-2026 | ORDERS-CRIMINAL | |
| 13-03-2026 | Objection | |
| 07-03-2026 | Objection |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District and Sessions Judge of Yadgir allowed the anticipatory bail petition of N.A. Tippeswamy, an FDA Tahasil office employee accused under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs. 50,000. The court found that the allegations do not warrant life imprisonment, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident with dependents, and the investigating officer did not seek personal interrogation, making him eligible for bail subject to reasonable conditions including a Rs. 1,00,000 personal bond with surety and compliance with investigation cooperation requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The District and Sessions Judge of Yadgir allowed the anticipatory bail petition of N.A. Tippeswamy, an FDA Tahasil office employee accused under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs. 50,000. The court found that the allegations do not warrant life imprisonment, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident with dependents, and the investigating officer did not seek personal interrogation, making him eligible for bail subject to reasonable conditions including a Rs. 1,00,000 personal bond with surety and compliance with investigation cooperation requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts