Ganesan vs SHO.,DCB., Cuddalore — 669/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 02nd April 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNCD010010772026
e-Filing Number
12-02-2026
Filing Number
739/2026
Filing Date
13-Feb-2026
Registration No
669/2026
Registration Date
13-Feb-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Cuddalore
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
02-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 23-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
32
Police Station
DCB, Cuddalore
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ganesan
Adv. Raja SELVAKUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.SHO.,DCB., Cuddalore
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Apr-2026
BailView PDF
Case Summary: 669/2026 The Principal Sessions Judge of Cuddalore dismissed Ganesan's anticipatory bail petition in a cheating case (IPC §420) involving Rs. 3,75,000. The court rejected the petitioner's claims of false implication and willingness to compromise, considering the substantial amount involved, ongoing investigation, and the complainant's strong opposition through an intervener petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
24-Mar-2026
Orders
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
23-Mar-2026
Orders
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Orders
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Orders
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Orders
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
24-Feb-2026
Orders
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
17-Feb-2026
Orders
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Feb-2026
Orders
Principal District and Sessions Judge
-
13-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 669/2026
Case Summary: 669/2026 The Principal Sessions Judge of Cuddalore dismissed Ganesan's anticipatory bail petition in a cheating case (IPC §420) involving Rs. 3,75,000. The court rejected the petitioner's claims of false implication and willingness to compromise, considering the substantial amount involved, ongoing investigation, and the complainant's strong opposition through an intervener petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts