Madhesh Alaias Madheshwaran and 2 others vs State Rep by SI of Police Magudanchavadi Police Station Advocate - THAMBI DURAI.P — 584/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNSA010012162026

e-Filing Number

04-03-2026

Filing Number

807/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

584/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Salem

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dismissed

Last updated 09-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

464

Police Station

Md.CHOULTRY P.S

Year

2011

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Indian Penal Code Section 147,148,294(b), 354, 323, 324, 307

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Madhesh Alaias Madheshwaran and 2 others

    Adv. KUMARESAN S

  2. 2.Mayilsamy

    Adv. KUMARESAN S

  3. 3.Mathi

    Adv. KUMARESAN S

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Rep by SI of Police Magudanchavadi Police Station Advocate - THAMBI DURAI.P

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The Principal Sessions Judge Salem dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by three accused persons charged with offenses including rioting, assault, and attempt to murder in a 2011 incident. The court found that since the final report was filed, summons were served, and the petitioners have been regularly attending court proceedings, anticipatory bail was not warranted in the circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 584/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal Sessions Judge Salem dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by three accused persons charged with offenses including rioting, assault, and attempt to murder in a 2011 incident. The court found that since the final report was filed, summons were served, and the petitioners have been regularly attending court proceedings, anticipatory bail was not warranted in the circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case