SAHULHAMEED vs Kottampatti P.s. Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR — 1170/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNMD010016712026

e-Filing Number

04-03-2026

Filing Number

1302/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

1170/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Madurai

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

219

Police Station

Kottatti Police Station

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAHULHAMEED

    Adv. BALAMURUGAN R

  2. 2.SORAMBEEVI

    Adv. BALAMURUGAN R

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Kottampatti P.s. Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: 1170/2026 The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Sahul Hameed and Sorambeevi (parents of accused A1) in a job racketing case. The petitioners were accused of cheating a complainant of Rs. 6,30,000 by falsely promising overseas employment in Cambodia. The court found that custodial interrogation was necessary, investigation was pending, and the serious nature of the offences warranted denial of anticipatory bail at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1170/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 1170/2026 The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Sahul Hameed and Sorambeevi (parents of accused A1) in a job racketing case. The petitioners were accused of cheating a complainant of Rs. 6,30,000 by falsely promising overseas employment in Cambodia. The court found that custodial interrogation was necessary, investigation was pending, and the serious nature of the offences warranted denial of anticipatory bail at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case