Manikandan vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector of Police PUTHUKADAI P.S Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 821/2026

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

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNKK010011792026

e-Filing Number

27-02-2026

Filing Number

894/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

821/2026

Registration Date

06-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

449

Police Station

PUTHUKADAI P.S

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Manikandan

    Adv. RCSUBRAMANI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector of Police PUTHUKADAI P.S Advocate - Public Prosecutor

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The court dismissed the petitioner's petition to relax bail conditions requiring daily police reporting at 10:00 A.M. Despite acknowledging the petitioner's excuse of caring for his pregnant wife, the court found that he had failed to comply regularly with the imposed conditions, with multiple non-compliance dates recorded by police. The court held that given the serious nature of the alleged offenses (BNS sections 126(2), 296(b), 351(3), and Arms Act section 27), the bail condition would remain unchanged. 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. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 821/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the petitioner's petition to relax bail conditions requiring daily police reporting at 10:00 A.M. Despite acknowledging the petitioner's excuse of caring for his pregnant wife, the court found that he had failed to comply regularly with the imposed conditions, with multiple non-compliance dates recorded by police. The court held that given the serious nature of the alleged offenses (BNS sections 126(2), 296(b), 351(3), and Arms Act section 27), the bail condition would remain unchanged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case