Town West Police Station, Dindigul vs Kannan and Two Others — 89/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),221,351(3). Status: Copies. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.

Copies Next hearing 19-Jun-2026

PRC - Preliminary Register Case

CNR: TNDG030046212025

e-Filing Number

22-07-2025

Filing Number

4592/2025

Filing Date

22-Jul-2025

Registration No

89/2025

Registration Date

24-Jul-2025

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindugul

Judge

8-Judicial Magistrate No I

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

235

Police Station

Dindigul Town West P.S.

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),221,351(3)
Arms Act, 1959 Section 25(1)(a)
Mp/1/2026 Classification : Others Section Town West Police Station, Dindigul

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Town West Police Station, Dindigul

    Adv. Inspector of Police Town West Police Statrion

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Kannan and Two Others

Case History

  1. 19-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 05-Jun-2026

    Copies

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  3. 22-May-2026

    Copies

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  4. 08-May-2026

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  5. 24-Apr-2026

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  6. 10-Apr-2026

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  7. 30-Mar-2026

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  8. 17-Mar-2026

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  9. 06-Mar-2026

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  10. 20-Feb-2026

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  11. 06-Feb-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

  12. 06-Feb-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: PRC No.89/2025 Accused Charles Britto sought bail for offenses under BNS sections 296(b), 221, and 351(3). The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the bail petition, citing that the accused absconded from proceedings since 14.08.2025, a Non-Bailable Warrant was pending, and the offense falls under exclusive Sessions Court jurisdiction. The court rejected arguments about family hardship and lack of absconding risk. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  13. 06-Feb-2026

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  14. 23-Jan-2026

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  15. 12-Jan-2026

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  16. 07-Jan-2026

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  17. 26-Dec-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  18. 12-Dec-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  19. 28-Nov-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  20. 14-Nov-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  21. 31-Oct-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  22. 17-Oct-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  23. 07-Oct-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  24. 23-Sep-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  25. 09-Sep-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  26. 26-Aug-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  27. 14-Aug-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  28. 01-Aug-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  29. 24-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 22-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 89/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: PRC No.89/2025 Accused Charles Britto sought bail for offenses under BNS sections 296(b), 221, and 351(3). The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the bail petition, citing that the accused absconded from proceedings since 14.08.2025, a Non-Bailable Warrant was pending, and the offense falls under exclusive Sessions Court jurisdiction. The court rejected arguments about family hardship and lack of absconding risk. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case