Rajkumar vs Ervadi ps — 223/2026

Disposed: Uncontested--Allowed on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNRM020006432026

Filing Number

599/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

223/2026

Registration Date

23-Feb-2026

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram

Judge

7-Judicial Magistrate No II

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Allowed

Last updated 25-Mar-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rajkumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ervadi ps (Police Station)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    SUMMARY: The Judicial Magistrate granted interim custody of a seized TVS Scooty scooter to petitioner Rajkumar, who established ownership through registration documents. The court found that keeping the vehicle in police custody served no purpose, as no confiscation order had been issued despite the Prohibition Enforcement Wing having custody, and idle storage would deteriorate the vehicle's condition. The petitioner was granted interim custody subject to executing a ₹50,000 bond with sureties, producing photographs, surrendering the RC book, maintaining monthly court appearances, and complying with future confiscation proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate No II

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Await Reports

    Judicial Magistrate No II

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Await Reports

    Judicial Magistrate No II

  6. 04-Mar-2026

    Service Pending-Notice

    Judicial Magistrate No II

  7. 25-Feb-2026

    Service Pending-Notice

    Judicial Magistrate No II

  8. 23-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 23-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 223/2026

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: The Judicial Magistrate granted interim custody of a seized TVS Scooty scooter to petitioner Rajkumar, who established ownership through registration documents. The court found that keeping the vehicle in police custody served no purpose, as no confiscation order had been issued despite the Prohibition Enforcement Wing having custody, and idle storage would deteriorate the vehicle's condition. The petitioner was granted interim custody subject to executing a ₹50,000 bond with sureties, producing photographs, surrendering the RC book, maintaining monthly court appearances, and complying with future confiscation proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case