Muniyaraj vs Inspector of Police — 756/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 06th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNCB010014962026
e-Filing Number
20-02-2026
Filing Number
1044/2026
Filing Date
23-02-2026
Registration No
756/2026
Registration Date
23-02-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Coimbatore
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Muniyaraj
Adv. S Rajendran
Respondent(s)
Inspector of Police
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Disposed
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-02-2026 | Enquiry |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Raja @ Muniyaraja, accused of misappropriating Rs. 13 lakh in loan installments collected from 65 self-help groups (SHGs) as a collection agent for Sri Lakshmi Ammal Trust. The court found the prosecution's allegations credible—that the accused collected funds meant for bank deposits, fabricated bank receipts, and misappropriated the money while SHG members' loan accounts were declared as defaulters. Considering the nature of the offence, serious allegations, ongoing investigation, and risk of absconding/witness tampering, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Raja @ Muniyaraja, accused of misappropriating Rs. 13 lakh in loan installments collected from 65 self-help groups (SHGs) as a collection agent for Sri Lakshmi Ammal Trust. The court found the prosecution's allegations credible—that the accused collected funds meant for bank deposits, fabricated bank receipts, and misappropriated the money while SHG members' loan accounts were declared as defaulters. Considering the nature of the offence, serious allegations, ongoing investigation, and risk of absconding/witness tampering, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts