ARJUN M N vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — CRL.P/17271/2025

Case under None Section NONE. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 17th April 2026.

CNR: KAHC010834122025

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

CRL.P/16897/2025

Filing Date

17-12-2025

Registration No

CRL.P/17271/2025

Registration Date

19-12-2025

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--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

None Section NONE

Petitioner(s)

ARJUN M N

Adv. POORNIMA

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Hearing History

Judge: M.NAGAPRASANNA

05-01-2026

NON-COMPLIANCE OF OFFICE-OBJNS FOR 1ST TIME

Orders

17-04-2026
M.NAGAPRASANNA

The Karnataka High Court dismissed Arjun M.N.'s anticipatory bail petition, holding that mere apprehension of arrest is insufficient without a registered complaint. The court noted that as of April 16, 2026, no complaint had been registered against the petitioner by Ruban Bridge Pvt. Ltd., thereby negating the basis for anticipatory bail. The petition was disposed with liberty reserved for the petitioner to approach appropriate forums if a rational apprehension of arrest materializes in future. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Karnataka High Court dismissed Arjun M.N.'s anticipatory bail petition, holding that mere apprehension of arrest is insufficient without a registered complaint. The court noted that as of April 16, 2026, no complaint had been registered against the petitioner by Ruban Bridge Pvt. Ltd., thereby negating the basis for anticipatory bail. The petition was disposed with liberty reserved for the petitioner to approach appropriate forums if a rational apprehension of arrest materializes in future. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case