SRI. JAGADISH. B. S. vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — CRL.P/17035/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 352,133,118(1),74,351(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 17th April 2026.

CNR: KAHC010817752025

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

CRL.P/16674/2025

Filing Date

11-12-2025

Registration No

CRL.P/17035/2025

Registration Date

15-12-2025

Judge

M.NAGAPRASANNA

Coram

M.NAGAPRASANNA

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

17th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 352,133,118(1),74,351(2),3(5)
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Section 3,4

Petitioner(s)

SRI. JAGADISH. B. S.

Adv. VIJAYA RAJAARSU R

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA

SMT. THAYAMMA

SMT. NEELAMMA

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Hearing History

Judge: M.NAGAPRASANNA

16-12-2025

NON-COMPLIANCE OF OFFICE-OBJNS FOR 1ST TIME

Orders

17-04-2026
M.NAGAPRASANNA

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to the four petitioners in a family dispute case registered under Sections 352, 133, 118(1), 74, 351(2) of the BNS 2023 and Sections 3-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Justice M. Nagaprasanna found the offences did not warrant imprisonment exceeding 10 years and characterized the matter as a family dispute blown into a criminal complaint, thereby entitling the petitioners to bail subject to conditions including Rs. 50,000 personal bond each, non-interference with investigation, cooperation with police, jurisdiction restrictions, and bi-weekly police reporting. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to the four petitioners in a family dispute case registered under Sections 352, 133, 118(1), 74, 351(2) of the BNS 2023 and Sections 3-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Justice M. Nagaprasanna found the offences did not warrant imprisonment exceeding 10 years and characterized the matter as a family dispute blown into a criminal complaint, thereby entitling the petitioners to bail subject to conditions including Rs. 50,000 personal bond each, non-interference with investigation, cooperation with police, jurisdiction restrictions, and bi-weekly police reporting. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case