SIDDIQ AHAMAD vs STATE BY HOLENARASIPURA TOWN POLICE — CRL.P/5973/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 61 (2), 64, 74, 308(2) R/W SECTION 3(5). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th June 2026.
CNR: KAHC010270792026
Filing Number
CRL.P/5889/2026
Filing Date
10-Apr-2026
Registration No
CRL.P/5973/2026
Registration Date
16-Apr-2026
Judge
S Vishwajith Shetty
Coram
S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRL.P ( 112 )
Sub-Category
438(Cr.PC) / 482(BNSS)-U/S 438/-U/S 482 ( 6 )
Judicial Branch
Judicial Section
Decision Date
09-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 11-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SIDDIQ AHAMAD
Adv. KRISHNA B J
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE BY HOLENARASIPURA TOWN POLICE
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Jun-2026
S Vishwajith ShettyView PDF
CASE SUMMARY: CRL.P 5973/2026 The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to Siddiq Ahamad (Accused No. 2) in Crime No. 23/2026, charged under BNS sections 61(2), 64, 74, and 308(2). The FIR alleged that Ahamad and his advocate wife coerced a woman to file a false rape complaint against a debtor named Mahadeva. The court found that even accepting the allegations as true, the serious offences (sections 64, 74) were not legally attracted against the petitioner, noted his clean criminal record and cooperation commitment, and that co-accused had already received regular bail. Bail was granted subject to conditions including ₹1 lakh bond with sureties, appearance before investigating officer, regular trial court attendance, witness non-tampering, and no similar offences in future. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Jun-2026
Orders -1St Time Matters
S Vishwajith Shetty
-
23-Apr-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRL.P/5973/2026
CASE SUMMARY: CRL.P 5973/2026 The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to Siddiq Ahamad (Accused No. 2) in Crime No. 23/2026, charged under BNS sections 61(2), 64, 74, and 308(2). The FIR alleged that Ahamad and his advocate wife coerced a woman to file a false rape complaint against a debtor named Mahadeva. The court found that even accepting the allegations as true, the serious offences (sections 64, 74) were not legally attracted against the petitioner, noted his clean criminal record and cooperation commitment, and that co-accused had already received regular bail. Bail was granted subject to conditions including ₹1 lakh bond with sureties, appearance before investigating officer, regular trial court attendance, witness non-tampering, and no similar offences in future. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts