Lijith vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector of Police Arumanai Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 815/2026

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

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNKK010012852026

e-Filing Number

05-03-2026

Filing Number

987/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

815/2026

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--Allowed

Last updated 19-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

55

Police Station

Arumanai P.S

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Lijith

    Adv. Paulraj A

  2. 2.Antony Robin

    Adv. Paulraj A

  3. 3.Rahul Krishna

    Adv. Paulraj A

  4. 4.Shijin

    Adv. Paulraj A

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector of Police Arumanai Advocate - Public Prosecutor

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The Principal Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to four accused persons charged with wrongful confinement, assault with weapons, criminal intimidation, and related offences during a temple festival altercation. The court found the charges relatively minor as the injured was discharged from hospital and the case appeared to be a counter-case, but imposed strict conditions including Rs. 10,000 bond with sureties, twice-daily reporting to the magistrate, and restrictions on leaving the police jurisdiction. 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. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 815/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to four accused persons charged with wrongful confinement, assault with weapons, criminal intimidation, and related offences during a temple festival altercation. The court found the charges relatively minor as the injured was discharged from hospital and the case appeared to be a counter-case, but imposed strict conditions including Rs. 10,000 bond with sureties, twice-daily reporting to the magistrate, and restrictions on leaving the police jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case