Somendrakumar vs The Inspector Of Police — 863/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNKI010014752026

e-Filing Number

09-03-2026

Filing Number

1139/2026

Filing Date

10-Mar-2026

Registration No

863/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Krishnagiri

Judge

1-Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

45

Police Station

SIPCOT POLICE STATION

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Somendrakumar

    Adv. MARKS K

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Inspector Of Police

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Case 863/2026 Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri granted anticipatory bail to Somendrakumar, accused of transporting 6 units of M-Sand without valid license or permission under IPC Section 303(2) read with Mines and Minerals Act Sections 21(1) and 21(4). The court found that since case property was seized, the petitioner had permanent residence, and the co-accused already deposited mineral value, absconding risk was minimal. Bail was granted on Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties and strict conditions including daily police station reporting, police cooperation, and non-tampering with evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 863/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 863/2026 Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri granted anticipatory bail to Somendrakumar, accused of transporting 6 units of M-Sand without valid license or permission under IPC Section 303(2) read with Mines and Minerals Act Sections 21(1) and 21(4). The court found that since case property was seized, the petitioner had permanent residence, and the co-accused already deposited mineral value, absconding risk was minimal. Bail was granted on Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties and strict conditions including daily police station reporting, police cooperation, and non-tampering with evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case