Duraipandian vs Sedapatti P.S. Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR — 1043/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNMD010016702026

e-Filing Number

04-03-2026

Filing Number

1301/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

1043/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Madurai

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 05-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

23

Police Station

Sedapatti Police Station

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Duraipandian

    Adv. NISHANTHAN A

  2. 2.Mugesh alias Kambatharasan

    Adv. NISHANTHAN A

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sedapatti P.S. Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of two accused (Duraipandian and Mugesh) under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, filed in connection with charges under Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act. The court found that the prosecution had raised strong objections, the investigation was at an early stage, and custodial interrogation was essential, rejecting the petitioners' claims of innocence and family dispute justifications. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1043/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of two accused (Duraipandian and Mugesh) under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, filed in connection with charges under Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act. The court found that the prosecution had raised strong objections, the investigation was at an early stage, and custodial interrogation was essential, rejecting the petitioners' claims of innocence and family dispute justifications. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case