Teppakulam P.S. vs Vijay Advocate - VETRIVEL R — 1151/2026

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

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNMD010019042026

Filing Number

1498/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

1151/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Madurai

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

64

Police Station

Teppakulam Police Stataion

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Teppakulam P.S.

    Adv. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vijay Advocate - VETRIVEL R

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Case 1151/2026 Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai dismissed Vijay's bail petition under BNSS Section 483 in a house-breaking and theft case (Crime No. 64/2026). The court rejected bail despite the petitioner's argument that he was falsely implicated merely for standing near another accused, citing incomplete investigation, non-recovery of stolen items (gold stud, silver ring, cash), and prosecution's strong objections as grounds for detention. 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. 16-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1151/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 1151/2026 Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai dismissed Vijay's bail petition under BNSS Section 483 in a house-breaking and theft case (Crime No. 64/2026). The court rejected bail despite the petitioner's argument that he was falsely implicated merely for standing near another accused, citing incomplete investigation, non-recovery of stolen items (gold stud, silver ring, cash), and prosecution's strong objections as grounds for detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case