V.R.T.Balaji vs Raja Annamalai and 2 others — 841/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 338. Disposed: Contested--CLOSED on 23rd March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNCG010018562026
Filing Number
1103/2026
Filing Date
12-Mar-2026
Registration No
841/2026
Registration Date
12-Mar-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Chengalpet
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
23-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--CLOSED
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
51
Police Station
CCB, TAMBARAM
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.V.R.T.Balaji
Adv. Raja Simiyon Anthony D
Respondent(s)
-
1.Raja Annamalai and 2 others
-
2.R.Devaki
-
3.CCB Tambaram
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Summary of Case 841/2026 (V.R.T. Balaji v. Raja Annamalai and Others): The court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Raja Annamalai and R. Devaki, who were accused of cheating V.R.T. Balaji through an alleged property fraud scheme involving financial inducements, forged documents, and unauthorized property transfers. The court found the allegations grave, noting the accused operated as a syndicate targeting loan-seekers, the swindled amount remained unrecovered, co-accused remained unsecured, and the investigation was preliminary, warranting denial of bail to prevent prejudice to prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Issue of Service
Principal District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 841/2026
Summary of Case 841/2026 (V.R.T. Balaji v. Raja Annamalai and Others): The court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Raja Annamalai and R. Devaki, who were accused of cheating V.R.T. Balaji through an alleged property fraud scheme involving financial inducements, forged documents, and unauthorized property transfers. The court found the allegations grave, noting the accused operated as a syndicate targeting loan-seekers, the swindled amount remained unrecovered, co-accused remained unsecured, and the investigation was preliminary, warranting denial of bail to prevent prejudice to prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts