Jaihindpuram P.s. vs Manikandan Advocate - NANDHINI K — 1102/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNMD010018182026

Filing Number

1420/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

1102/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Madurai

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

87

Police Station

Jaihindpuram Police Station

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Jaihindpuram P.s.

    Adv. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Manikandan Advocate - NANDHINI K

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai granted bail to Manikandan, accused of NDPS Act violations and drug trafficking, after he spent 32 days in custody. The court imposed stringent conditions including daily reporting to Tirupuvanam police station, cooperation with investigation, and a Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties, noting that material investigation had been completed and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1102/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai granted bail to Manikandan, accused of NDPS Act violations and drug trafficking, after he spent 32 days in custody. The court imposed stringent conditions including daily reporting to Tirupuvanam police station, cooperation with investigation, and a Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties, noting that material investigation had been completed and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case