Lakshmanan vs Inspector of Police Thirumangalam Taluk Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR — 935/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 07th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNMD010014282026
e-Filing Number
24-02-2026
Filing Number
1124/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
935/2026
Registration Date
27-02-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Madurai
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
FIR Details
FIR Number
40
Police Station
Thirumangalam Taluk P.S.
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lakshmanan
Adv. CHANDRA SEKAR M
Balamurugan
Adv. CHANDRA SEKAR M
Respondent(s)
Inspector of Police Thirumangalam Taluk Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 05-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 04-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 02-03-2026 | Enquiry |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai granted anticipatory bail to two accused advocates in Criminal Case No.40/2026 (arising from a communal temple dispute in Alampatti village on 19.02.2026) on conditions including Rs.1,000 deposit each and Rs.10,000 bonds with sureties, daily appearance before the magistrate, and cooperation with investigation. However, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail petitions for the remaining 30 accused, citing the serious nature of offences (unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation, property damage), ongoing communal tension requiring police picketing, and the need for custodial interrogation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai granted anticipatory bail to two accused advocates in Criminal Case No.40/2026 (arising from a communal temple dispute in Alampatti village on 19.02.2026) on conditions including Rs.1,000 deposit each and Rs.10,000 bonds with sureties, daily appearance before the magistrate, and cooperation with investigation. However, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail petitions for the remaining 30 accused, citing the serious nature of offences (unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation, property damage), ongoing communal tension requiring police picketing, and the need for custodial interrogation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts