Shanthi Mary vs The Inspector of Police, Podanur Police Station, Coimbatore City — 850/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 27th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNCB010016762026

e-Filing Number

28-02-2026

Filing Number

1168/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

850/2026

Registration Date

02-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Coimbatore

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 26-Apr-2026

FIR Details

Police Station

B13 Podanur police station

Year

0

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shanthi Mary

    Adv. K E EZHILARASAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Inspector of Police, Podanur Police Station, Coimbatore City

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Y. Shanthi Mary, accused of misappropriating Rs. 11.39 lakh from a chit fund company. The court found that considering the nature of the offense, allegations of fraud and embezzlement, and the early stage of investigation with the amount still unrecovered, granting anticipatory bail was not warranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  7. 05-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 02-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 850/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Y. Shanthi Mary, accused of misappropriating Rs. 11.39 lakh from a chit fund company. The court found that considering the nature of the offense, allegations of fraud and embezzlement, and the early stage of investigation with the amount still unrecovered, granting anticipatory bail was not warranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case