ABDULRAZZAD alias SIVAKUMAR alias ABDULRAZHAK A1 AND ANOTHER vs SHO CUDDALORE OT PS — 1129/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNCD010021402026

e-Filing Number

18-03-2026

Filing Number

1270/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

1129/2026

Registration Date

23-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Cuddalore

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 01-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

116

Police Station

Cuddalore O.T. P.S.

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

1.ABDULRAZZAD alias SIVAKUMAR alias ABDULRAZHAK A1 AND ANOTHER

Adv. ARULNATHAN A
2.SEETHARAMAN A2

Adv. ARULNATHAN A

Respondent(s)

1.SHO (Station House Officer) CUDDALORE OT PS (Police Station)

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
24-Mar-2026

Bail

Case Summary: The court dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by Abdulrazzad (A1) and Seetharaman (A2), who were charged under BNS sections 296(b), 115(2), and 351(3) following an FIR registered on 13.03.2026. The accused claimed they were falsely implicated and that the dispute was civil in nature regarding property measurement, noting the injured party was discharged from hospital. However, the court found the offense grave in nature and investigation incomplete, declining to grant anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
24-Mar-2026

Disposed

Principal District and Sessions Judge
23-Mar-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
23-Mar-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 1129/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The court dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by Abdulrazzad (A1) and Seetharaman (A2), who were charged under BNS sections 296(b), 115(2), and 351(3) following an FIR registered on 13.03.2026. The accused claimed they were falsely implicated and that the dispute was civil in nature regarding property measurement, noting the injured party was discharged from hospital. However, the court found the offense grave in nature and investigation incomplete, declining to grant anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.