Edward Bright vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police vadasery Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 770/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNKK010012452026

e-Filing Number

03-03-2026

Filing Number

952/2026

Filing Date

03-Mar-2026

Registration No

770/2026

Registration Date

03-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

69

Police Station

VADASERY P.S.,

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Edward Bright

    Adv. M Arthamanov

  2. 2.Ida Bel

    Adv. M Arthamanov

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari dismissed two anticipatory bail petitions filed by seven accused persons charged with trespass, assault, theft, and criminal intimidation. The court found the allegations serious—involving forced entry into the complainant's home, abuse, assault of the complainant and her husband, and theft of valuables worth ₹76 lakhs—and determined that granting bail at the preliminary investigation stage could obstruct the investigation and pose a threat to the complainant's safety. 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. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 03-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 770/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari dismissed two anticipatory bail petitions filed by seven accused persons charged with trespass, assault, theft, and criminal intimidation. The court found the allegations serious—involving forced entry into the complainant's home, abuse, assault of the complainant and her husband, and theft of valuables worth ₹76 lakhs—and determined that granting bail at the preliminary investigation stage could obstruct the investigation and pose a threat to the complainant's safety. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case