Dhinesh vs Inspector of Police, Karumathampatty PS — 256/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 480. Disposed: Uncontested--Allowed on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNCB180005492026

e-Filing Number

04-03-2026

Filing Number

539/2026

Filing Date

04-Mar-2026

Registration No

256/2026

Registration Date

04-Mar-2026

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur

Judge

31-Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Allowed

Last updated 26-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

90

Police Station

Karumathampatty Police Station

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 480

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Dhinesh

    Adv. Arunraj A

  2. 2.Sathish

    Adv. Arunraj A

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Inspector of Police, Karumathampatty PS (Police Station)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Judicial Magistrate granted bail to two accused (Sathish and Dhinesh) charged with abuse, assault, and threats under BNS sections 118(1), 296(b), 303(2), and 351(3), considering their 9-day judicial custody, lack of prior antecedents, and the injured party's hospital discharge. The court imposed strict conditions including Rs. 10,000 bonds with sureties, daily police reporting for 30 days, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding, with breach liable to criminal action. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Cmp Pending

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  6. 04-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 04-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 256/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate granted bail to two accused (Sathish and Dhinesh) charged with abuse, assault, and threats under BNS sections 118(1), 296(b), 303(2), and 351(3), considering their 9-day judicial custody, lack of prior antecedents, and the injured party's hospital discharge. The court imposed strict conditions including Rs. 10,000 bonds with sureties, daily police reporting for 30 days, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding, with breach liable to criminal action. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case