shek Abdulla alias Shak Abdula vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police Perambalur PS Advocate - THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MAHILA COURT PERAMBALUR — 285/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 18th March 2026.

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNPB010004712026

Case disposed

Filing Number

321/2026

Filing Date

11-03-2026

Registration No

285/2026

Registration Date

11-03-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Perambalur

Judge

2-Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.

Decision Date

18th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

FIR Details

FIR Number

153

Police Station

POLICE STATION, PERMBALUR.

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

shek Abdulla alias Shak Abdula

Adv. P. KAMARASU

Respondent(s)

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

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.

18-03-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

Await Reports

11-03-2026

Appearance

Final Orders / Judgements

18-03-2026
Copy of Judgment/Order

The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court, Perambalur) dismissed the bail petition of Shek Abdulla, who was charged under Section 24(1) of COTPA Act 2003 and Section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 for possessing 111 "Cool Lip" bundles (11.189 kg). The court found that investigation was still pending, forensic analysis was required, and the prosecution's concerns about risk of absconding, witness tampering, and re-offense warranted denial of bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court, Perambalur) dismissed the bail petition of Shek Abdulla, who was charged under Section 24(1) of COTPA Act 2003 and Section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 for possessing 111 "Cool Lip" bundles (11.189 kg). The court found that investigation was still pending, forensic analysis was required, and the prosecution's concerns about risk of absconding, witness tampering, and re-offense warranted denial of bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Principal District Court, Perambalur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case