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
Filing Number
321/2026
Filing Date
11-Mar-2026
Registration No
285/2026
Registration Date
11-Mar-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Perambalur
Judge
2-Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 19-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
153
Police Station
POLICE STATION, PERMBALUR.
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.shek Abdulla alias Shak Abdula
Adv. P. KAMARASU
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Inspector of Police Perambalur PS (Police Station) Advocate - THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MAHILA COURT PERAMBALUR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF
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.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.
-
16-Mar-2026
Await Reports
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur.
-
11-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 285/2026
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.
Explore other courts