Jaheer Ussain vs District collector, Dindugal — 424/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 497, 503. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 30th April 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNDG010011372026
e-Filing Number
13-02-2026
Filing Number
554/2026
Filing Date
13-Feb-2026
Registration No
424/2026
Registration Date
13-Feb-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Dindugul
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
30-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 28-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
211
Police Station
Kallimandayam P.S.
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Jaheer Ussain
Adv. Kathiravan L
Respondent(s)
-
1.District collector, Dindugal
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Apr-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
30-Apr-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
The court granted interim custody of the Tipper Lorry (TN 94 X 3867) to petitioner Sakeer Husain, finding him to be the legitimate owner based on registration records and company documentation. The court imposed strict conditions including a Rs. 25,000 non-refundable deposit, Rs. 3,00,000 bond with sureties, undertaking not to involve the vehicle in future offences, monthly vehicle production before the magistrate, and cooperation with investigation, reasoning that prolonged seizure would damage the vehicle and impair its value. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal District Judge
-
28-Apr-2026
Counter
Principal District Judge
-
24-Apr-2026
Counter
Principal District Judge
-
21-Apr-2026
Counter
Principal District Judge
-
07-Apr-2026
Counter
Principal District Judge
-
23-Mar-2026
Counter
Principal District Judge
-
03-Mar-2026
Counter
Principal District Judge
-
13-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 424/2026
The court granted interim custody of the Tipper Lorry (TN 94 X 3867) to petitioner Sakeer Husain, finding him to be the legitimate owner based on registration records and company documentation. The court imposed strict conditions including a Rs. 25,000 non-refundable deposit, Rs. 3,00,000 bond with sureties, undertaking not to involve the vehicle in future offences, monthly vehicle production before the magistrate, and cooperation with investigation, reasoning that prolonged seizure would damage the vehicle and impair its value. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts