Murugan vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police All Women PS Perambalur Advocate - THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MAHILA COURT PERAMBALUR — 243/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 439. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNPB010004102026

Filing Number

282/2026

Filing Date

03-Mar-2026

Registration No

243/2026

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 439

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Murugan

    Adv. R. THIRUNAVUKKARASU

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 Sessions Judge dismissed the bail petition filed by Murugan (A2), accused of child marriage and POCSO Act violations, as he is the father of the victim and poses a risk of tampering with evidence. The court rejected his claims of false implication, finding that his previous absconding behavior, the serious nature of charges, and the need to secure his trial presence outweighed bail considerations, despite the case pending over 3 years. 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. 243/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge dismissed the bail petition filed by Murugan (A2), accused of child marriage and POCSO Act violations, as he is the father of the victim and poses a risk of tampering with evidence. The court rejected his claims of false implication, finding that his previous absconding behavior, the serious nature of charges, and the need to secure his trial presence outweighed bail considerations, despite the case pending over 3 years. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case