P Mahadevi vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector of Police ERAINEL P.S Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 819/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483(1)(b). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 11th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNKK010011592026
e-Filing Number
26-02-2026
Filing Number
877/2026
Filing Date
26-02-2026
Registration No
819/2026
Registration Date
06-03-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
FIR Details
FIR Number
549
Police Station
ERAINEL P.S
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
P Mahadevi
Adv. M.Chenthil Kumar
A Pazhani
Adv. M.Chenthil Kumar
Respondent(s)
State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector of Police ERAINEL P.S Advocate - Public Prosecutor
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 09-03-2026 | Enquiry |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Principal Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari District allowed the petition filed by P. Mahadevi and A. Pazhani and completely relaxed the bail conditions imposed on them. The court found that the petitioners had been consistently complying with the modified condition of weekly police appearance since January 12, 2026, and considering the nature of offences (under BNS sections 296(b), 329(4), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002) and their compliance record, the court decided to remove all reporting requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Principal Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari District allowed the petition filed by P. Mahadevi and A. Pazhani and completely relaxed the bail conditions imposed on them. The court found that the petitioners had been consistently complying with the modified condition of weekly police appearance since January 12, 2026, and considering the nature of offences (under BNS sections 296(b), 329(4), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) and TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002) and their compliance record, the court decided to remove all reporting requirements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts