VIVEK vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police Perambalur PS Advocate - THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PDC PERAMBALUR — 246/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 06th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNPB010003932026

e-Filing Number

27-02-2026

Filing Number

269/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

246/2026

Registration Date

03-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Perambalur

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur.

Decision Date

06-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 11-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VIVEK

    Adv. S.DHIVAKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police Perambalur PS (Police Station) Advocate - THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PDC PERAMBALUR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur dismissed Vivek's anticipatory bail petition for alleged offences under BNS sections 309(4) and 351(3) (knife-point robbery of Rs.3,000 and criminal intimidation). The court rejected the plea citing the petitioner's involvement in the FIR-alleged incident, two previous criminal cases, pending investigation, and risk of reoffence or absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur.

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    Appearance

    Principal District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur.

  5. 03-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 02-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 246/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur dismissed Vivek's anticipatory bail petition for alleged offences under BNS sections 309(4) and 351(3) (knife-point robbery of Rs.3,000 and criminal intimidation). The court rejected the plea citing the petitioner's involvement in the FIR-alleged incident, two previous criminal cases, pending investigation, and risk of reoffence or absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case