Ponmani vs Inspector of Police, PEW Police , Sirkali — 339/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNMY010006432026

e-Filing Number

04-03-2026

Filing Number

501/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

339/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

District and Sessions Court, Mayiladuthurai

Judge

8-District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 18-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ponmani

    Adv. RV.HARIHARAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Inspector of Police, PEW Police , Sirkali

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    The District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Ponmani Rajendran, accused of transporting illegal liquor (110 liters of arrack and 480 bottles of brandy) under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act and Transport Act. The court held that as the vehicle owner and prime accused in a prohibition offense case, she was not entitled to anticipatory bail, noting that one co-accused was already arrested and others remain absconding with investigation ongoing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Service Pending

    District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 339/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Ponmani Rajendran, accused of transporting illegal liquor (110 liters of arrack and 480 bottles of brandy) under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Amendment Act and Transport Act. The court held that as the vehicle owner and prime accused in a prohibition offense case, she was not entitled to anticipatory bail, noting that one co-accused was already arrested and others remain absconding with investigation ongoing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case