Perumal vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police All Women PS Perambalur Advocate - THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MAHILA COURT PERAMBALUR — 270/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483(1)(b). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 24th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNPB010004452026
Filing Number
304/2026
Filing Date
07-03-2026
Registration No
270/2026
Registration Date
07-03-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Perambalur
Judge
2-Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
FIR Details
FIR Number
57
Police Station
AWPS PERAMBALUR
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Perumal
Adv. S. SIRAJUDEEN
Respondent(s)
State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police All Women PS (Police Station) Perambalur Advocate - THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MAHILA COURT PERAMBALUR
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.
Disposed
Await Reports
Await Reports
Appearance
Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | Await Reports |
| 16-03-2026 | Await Reports |
| 12-03-2026 | Appearance |
| 11-03-2026 | Appearance |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Mahila Court, Perambalur allowed the accused Perumal's petition to modify bail conditions imposed in a POCSO Act case, changing his daily reporting requirement from the All Women Police Station, Thanjavur to the nearer Samayapuram Police Station, considering his advanced age of 75 years. However, the court retained protective conditions including restrictions on threatening the victim, tampering with witnesses, hampering investigation, and leaving India without court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Mahila Court, Perambalur allowed the accused Perumal's petition to modify bail conditions imposed in a POCSO Act case, changing his daily reporting requirement from the All Women Police Station, Thanjavur to the nearer Samayapuram Police Station, considering his advanced age of 75 years. However, the court retained protective conditions including restrictions on threatening the victim, tampering with witnesses, hampering investigation, and leaving India without court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts