Sadeeshkumar vs Avaniyapuram P.s. Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR — 1044/2026

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

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNMD010017002026

Filing Number

1326/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

1044/2026

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

461

Police Station

Avaniyapuram Police Station

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sadeeshkumar

    Adv. PONSUNDARAPANDIAN M

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai dismissed Sadeeshkumar's anticipatory bail petition under Section 482 BNSS in a case involving alleged offences under BNS sections 49, 296(b), 351(3), the Explosive Substances Act, and Arms Act. The court rejected the bail plea, holding that custodial interrogation was essential, the petitioner could not claim parity with co-accused A1 and A2 (already granted bail), and there was no change in circumstances since the earlier petition's dismissal, given the serious nature of the allegations involving a petrol bomb attack. 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. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1044/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai dismissed Sadeeshkumar's anticipatory bail petition under Section 482 BNSS in a case involving alleged offences under BNS sections 49, 296(b), 351(3), the Explosive Substances Act, and Arms Act. The court rejected the bail plea, holding that custodial interrogation was essential, the petitioner could not claim parity with co-accused A1 and A2 (already granted bail), and there was no change in circumstances since the earlier petition's dismissal, given the serious nature of the allegations involving a petrol bomb attack. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case