Navaneetha Krishnan vs Inspector of Police — 14/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 440. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLR - Criminal Revision Petition

CNR: TNCB010009992026

e-Filing Number

03-02-2026

Filing Number

686/2026

Filing Date

04-Feb-2026

Registration No

14/2026

Registration Date

07-Feb-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Coimbatore

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 18-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 440

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Navaneetha Krishnan

    Adv. NAVEENKUMAR S

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Inspector of Police

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore allowed the criminal revision petition and modified the surety condition imposed by the lower court. The petitioner, unable to produce a single surety worth Rs. 1,30,00,000 for the release of seized gold jewelry, was permitted instead to furnish four sureties with property documents totaling the requisite amount, as the court held that conditions for property release should not be impossible to comply with. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Principal District Judge

  5. 26-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Principal District Judge

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  7. 18-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 04-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 14/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore allowed the criminal revision petition and modified the surety condition imposed by the lower court. The petitioner, unable to produce a single surety worth Rs. 1,30,00,000 for the release of seized gold jewelry, was permitted instead to furnish four sureties with property documents totaling the requisite amount, as the court held that conditions for property release should not be impossible to comply with. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case