SHO Kallakurichi PS vs Patchamuthu (Bail) — 856/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 480. Disposed: Uncontested--Allowed on 26th May 2026.

Case disposedSub Stage

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNKA020010212026

Filing Number

936/2026

Filing Date

22-May-2026

Registration No

856/2026

Registration Date

22-May-2026

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kallakurichi

Judge

10-Judicial Magistrate No.I

Decision Date

26-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Allowed

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

251

Police Station

Kallakurichi P.S

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 480

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHO (Station House Officer) Kallakurichi PS (Police Station)

    Adv. M.Senthil Madurai

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Patchamuthu (Bail)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-May-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary: Crl.M.P. No. 856/2026 The court granted bail to Patchamuthu, who was arrested under BNS sections 115(2), 118(1), 296(b), and 351(3) for allegedly assaulting someone and issuing threats. The court found no prior criminal history, noted the complainant had already been discharged from hospital, and held that continued judicial custody was unnecessary, applying the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception." Bail was granted with conditions including a personal bond of ₹10,000, two sureties of ₹50,000 each, and restrictions on absconding and witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-May-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  4. 22-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 22-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 856/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Crl.M.P. No. 856/2026 The court granted bail to Patchamuthu, who was arrested under BNS sections 115(2), 118(1), 296(b), and 351(3) for allegedly assaulting someone and issuing threats. The court found no prior criminal history, noted the complainant had already been discharged from hospital, and held that continued judicial custody was unnecessary, applying the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception." Bail was granted with conditions including a personal bond of ₹10,000, two sureties of ₹50,000 each, and restrictions on absconding and witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case