Partha alias Parthipan vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police All Women PS Perambalur Advocate - THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MAHILA COURT PERAMBALUR — 242/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNPB010004092026

Filing Number

281/2026

Filing Date

03-Mar-2026

Registration No

242/2026

Registration Date

03-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Perambalur

Judge

2-Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 18-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Partha alias Parthipan

    Adv. M. SATHIYASEELAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police All Women PS (Police Station) Perambalur Advocate - THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MAHILA COURT PERAMBALUR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    The Mahila Court, Perambalur dismissed the bail petition of accused Partha @ Parthipan, who is charged with offences under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 366, 427, 506(i) and POCSO Act sections 5(l), 6, 11(4), 12. The court denied bail citing the accused's previous non-appearance and absconding, the need to secure his presence during trial, pending victim examination, and the one-year trial completion mandate under POCSO Act Section 35. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Appearance

    Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.

  5. 03-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 03-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 242/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Mahila Court, Perambalur dismissed the bail petition of accused Partha @ Parthipan, who is charged with offences under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 366, 427, 506(i) and POCSO Act sections 5(l), 6, 11(4), 12. The court denied bail citing the accused's previous non-appearance and absconding, the need to secure his presence during trial, pending victim examination, and the one-year trial completion mandate under POCSO Act Section 35. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case