Alex vs Inspector of Police Thirumangalam Taluk Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR — 1003/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 07th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNMD010015802026
e-Filing Number
28-02-2026
Filing Number
1230/2026
Filing Date
02-03-2026
Registration No
1003/2026
Registration Date
04-03-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Madurai
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
FIR Details
FIR Number
40
Police Station
Thirumangalam Taluk P.S.
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Alex
Adv. REVATHI
Vijaymanickam
Adv. REVATHI
Mukesh
Adv. REVATHI
Rajithaganthi
Adv. REVATHI
Manimaran
Adv. REVATHI
Balakrishnan
Adv. REVATHI
Ponnusamy
Adv. REVATHI
Oorakalan
Adv. REVATHI
Vignesh
Adv. REVATHI
Munisankar
Adv. REVATHI
Sasi
Adv. REVATHI
Ambspandi
Adv. REVATHI
Chellam alias Selvam
Adv. REVATHI
Jeyakumar
Adv. REVATHI
Selvakumar
Adv. REVATHI
Thangaraj
Adv. REVATHI
Balamurugan
Adv. REVATHI
Sathish
Adv. REVATHI
Mahendran
Adv. REVATHI
Sakthivel
Adv. REVATHI
Manikandan
Adv. REVATHI
Selvam
Adv. REVATHI
Manikandan
Adv. REVATHI
Ramesh
Adv. REVATHI
Ramesh
Adv. REVATHI
Pukazhenthi
Adv. REVATHI
Lakshmanan
Adv. REVATHI
Alagar
Adv. REVATHI
Sundharam
Adv. REVATHI
Muthuraj
Adv. REVATHI
Selvamkumar
Adv. REVATHI
Respondent(s)
Inspector of Police Thirumangalam Taluk Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Enquiry
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 05-03-2026 | Enquiry |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, granted anticipatory bail to two advocates (petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.935/2026) involved in a temple violence case, finding them unlikely to abscond given their professional status and no prior criminal records. However, the court rejected anticipatory bail for 30 other accused (petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.1003/2026), citing the serious nature of offences, ongoing communal tension, and need for custodial interrogation—the case involved a violent conflict over temple religious activities where accused allegedly assaulted complainants with weapons and damaged property worth ₹20,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, granted anticipatory bail to two advocates (petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.935/2026) involved in a temple violence case, finding them unlikely to abscond given their professional status and no prior criminal records. However, the court rejected anticipatory bail for 30 other accused (petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.1003/2026), citing the serious nature of offences, ongoing communal tension, and need for custodial interrogation—the case involved a violent conflict over temple religious activities where accused allegedly assaulted complainants with weapons and damaged property worth ₹20,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts