SIP Thirupullani vs Ramesh Kannan — 225/2026

Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNRM020006552026

Filing Number

611/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

225/2026

Registration Date

24-Feb-2026

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram

Judge

6-Judicial Magistrate No I

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dismissed

Last updated 25-Mar-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SIP (Sub-Inspector of Police) Thirupullani

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ramesh Kannan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary: The court dismissed the petitioner's plea seeking interim custody of his Samsung Galaxy mobile phone that was seized during his arrest in Crime No. 165/2025 under the Arms Act. The court found that the phone's retention was necessary for forensic analysis in connection with related CBCID investigations and that the petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence of ownership. The court determined that the full investigation's outcome should guide any final decision on the device's custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  6. 04-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  7. 03-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  8. 02-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  9. 26-Feb-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No I

  10. 25-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 225/2026

  11. 24-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court dismissed the petitioner's plea seeking interim custody of his Samsung Galaxy mobile phone that was seized during his arrest in Crime No. 165/2025 under the Arms Act. The court found that the phone's retention was necessary for forensic analysis in connection with related CBCID investigations and that the petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence of ownership. The court determined that the full investigation's outcome should guide any final decision on the device's custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case