Thilagar Thidal P.s. vs Manimala Advocate - NAGARAJAN M — 1107/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNMD010018232026

Filing Number

1425/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

1107/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Madurai

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

354

Police Station

Thilagar Thidal Police Station

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Thilagar Thidal P.s.

    Adv. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Manimala Advocate - NAGARAJAN M

  2. 2.Soniya

    Adv. NAGARAJAN M

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai dismissed the bail petition of two women (Manimala and Soniya) accused of stealing a 250-gram silver bar from a jewelry shop under Section 305 of BNS. The court rejected bail due to: (1) CCTV identification and recovery of stolen property linking them to the offense, (2) their extensive criminal antecedents (4 and 3 prior similar cases respectively), (3) ongoing investigation, and (4) risk of reoffending if released. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1107/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai dismissed the bail petition of two women (Manimala and Soniya) accused of stealing a 250-gram silver bar from a jewelry shop under Section 305 of BNS. The court rejected bail due to: (1) CCTV identification and recovery of stolen property linking them to the offense, (2) their extensive criminal antecedents (4 and 3 prior similar cases respectively), (3) ongoing investigation, and (4) risk of reoffending if released. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case