Inspector Of Police Nemili Ps vs VASUDEVAN — 30/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483(1)(b). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNRP050000732026

Filing Number

51/2026

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

30/2026

Registration Date

26-Feb-2026

Court

II Additional District and Sessions Court, Arakkonam

Judge

1-2nd Additional District Judge, Arakkonam

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 19-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483(1)(b)

Petitioner(s)

1.Inspector Of Police Nemili Ps (Police Station)

Adv. ASST PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Respondent(s)

1.VASUDEVAN
2.LOGESHWARAN
3.KISHORE @ KISHOREKUMAR
4.KISHORE

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
13-Mar-2026

Bail OrderView PDF

The II Additional District and Sessions Court, Arakkonam allowed the petition filed by accused A1, A4-A6 to relax the daily court appearance condition imposed in their bail order dated 27.01.2026. The court found that the petitioners had complied with the strict daily attendance requirement for 32 days and were facing genuine hardship as sole breadwinners working 35 km away, and modified the condition to require appearance only on future hearing dates instead of daily attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
13-Mar-2026

Disposed

2nd Additional District Judge, Arakkonam
09-Mar-2026

Arguments

2nd Additional District Judge, Arakkonam
04-Mar-2026

Arguments

2nd Additional District Judge, Arakkonam
02-Mar-2026

Issue of Service

2nd Additional District Judge, Arakkonam
26-Feb-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
26-Feb-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 30/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The II Additional District and Sessions Court, Arakkonam allowed the petition filed by accused A1, A4-A6 to relax the daily court appearance condition imposed in their bail order dated 27.01.2026. The court found that the petitioners had complied with the strict daily attendance requirement for 32 days and were facing genuine hardship as sole breadwinners working 35 km away, and modified the condition to require appearance only on future hearing dates instead of daily attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.