Govindan vs The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai Police Station — 175/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 480. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 11th March 2026.

Case disposedSub Stage

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNRM170004452026

Filing Number

438/2026

Filing Date

03-Mar-2026

Registration No

175/2026

Registration Date

04-Mar-2026

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvadanai

Judge

2-Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 25-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 480

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Govindan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai Police Station

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The Thiruvadanai Judicial Magistrate Court granted bail to Govinthan, accused of stealing three batteries from a gram E-Sewa centre under Sections 331(4) and 305 BNS. The court found that while the offense was serious, continued incarceration was unwarranted given the completed investigation, absence of flight risk (permanent resident), no evidence of witness tampering, and 52 days already spent in custody. Bail was granted on Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties and conditions including daily court reporting, cooperation with trial, and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  7. 04-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 03-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 175/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Thiruvadanai Judicial Magistrate Court granted bail to Govinthan, accused of stealing three batteries from a gram E-Sewa centre under Sections 331(4) and 305 BNS. The court found that while the offense was serious, continued incarceration was unwarranted given the completed investigation, absence of flight risk (permanent resident), no evidence of witness tampering, and 52 days already spent in custody. Bail was granted on Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties and conditions including daily court reporting, cooperation with trial, and non-interference with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case