Sethu vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police KANNIYAKUMARI Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 789/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483(i)(b). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNKK010011172026

e-Filing Number

24-02-2026

Filing Number

840/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

789/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 19-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

31

Police Station

KANNIYAKUMARI P.S.,

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483(i)(b)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sethu

    Adv. Adv. Sai Sudar K

  2. 2.Thennarasu

    Adv. Adv. Sai Sudar K

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police KANNIYAKUMARI Advocate - Public Prosecutor

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the petition filed by two accused seeking relaxation of anticipatory bail conditions requiring twice-daily appearances before the Judicial Magistrate. The court rejected the request after finding that the petitioners had only complied with the condition on four occasions (12.02.2026, 13.02.2026, 18.02.2026, and 20.02.2026) and considered the serious nature of the alleged offences under BNS sections 296(b), 324(4), and 351(3). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 789/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the petition filed by two accused seeking relaxation of anticipatory bail conditions requiring twice-daily appearances before the Judicial Magistrate. The court rejected the request after finding that the petitioners had only complied with the condition on four occasions (12.02.2026, 13.02.2026, 18.02.2026, and 20.02.2026) and considered the serious nature of the alleged offences under BNS sections 296(b), 324(4), and 351(3). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case