Anbushelvan vs Peelamedu Inspector of Police — 744/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 16th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNCB010014452026
e-Filing Number
19-02-2026
Filing Number
1012/2026
Filing Date
19-Feb-2026
Registration No
744/2026
Registration Date
20-Feb-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Coimbatore
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 18-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
740
Police Station
B6 Peelamedu Police Staton
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Anbushelvan
Adv. S NIHAR ALI
Respondent(s)
-
1.Peelamedu Inspector of Police
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Summary The Coimbatore Principal District & Sessions Judge granted bail to accused A-1 (Senthilvasan) and anticipatory bail to accused A-3 (Anbushelvan) in a cheating case under BNS Section 318(4). The accused allegedly defrauded a construction company owner of ₹67 lakhs by posing as loan brokers offering ₹25 crores through fake demand drafts. The court granted relief primarily because both accused agreed to settle ₹10 lakhs each to the complainant via demand draft, to which the complainant consented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
04-Mar-2026
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
25-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 744/2026
Summary The Coimbatore Principal District & Sessions Judge granted bail to accused A-1 (Senthilvasan) and anticipatory bail to accused A-3 (Anbushelvan) in a cheating case under BNS Section 318(4). The accused allegedly defrauded a construction company owner of ₹67 lakhs by posing as loan brokers offering ₹25 crores through fake demand drafts. The court granted relief primarily because both accused agreed to settle ₹10 lakhs each to the complainant via demand draft, to which the complainant consented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts