Ganapathi vs Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station — 674/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,394,397,506(ii). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNCG010015722026

Filing Number

932/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

674/2026

Registration Date

02-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Chengalpet

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

79

Police Station

CHENGALPATTU TALUK

Year

2008

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 341,394,397,506(ii)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ganapathi

    Adv. SHEIK ALAUDEEN N A

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Case 674/2026 Summary: The court dismissed Ganapathi's bail petition in a case dating to 2008 involving charges of wrongful restraint, dacoity, and criminal intimidation. The judge denied bail despite the petitioner's 18 days in custody and offer of sureties, citing his prolonged absconding history, risk of re-absconding, gravity of offences, and the case's uncommitted status as grounds for detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  6. 04-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  7. 02-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 02-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 674/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 674/2026 Summary: The court dismissed Ganapathi's bail petition in a case dating to 2008 involving charges of wrongful restraint, dacoity, and criminal intimidation. The judge denied bail despite the petitioner's 18 days in custody and offer of sureties, citing his prolonged absconding history, risk of re-absconding, gravity of offences, and the case's uncommitted status as grounds for detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case