MURUGESAN (480 BNSS) vs THE SI OF POLICE, THAMMAMPATTI PS — 454/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 480. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNSA140012032026

e-Filing Number

02-03-2026

Filing Number

1203/2026

Filing Date

03-Mar-2026

Registration No

454/2026

Registration Date

03-Mar-2026

Court

Judicial Magistrate, Attur

Judge

4-Judicial Magistrate - II, Attur

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 12-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 480

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MURUGESAN (480 BNSS)

    Adv. RAGAVAN R

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE SI OF POLICE, THAMMAMPATTI PS (Police Station)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judicial/Revenue proceedings.View PDF

    The Judicial Magistrate dismissed Murugesan's bail petition under Section 480 BNSS for offenses under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3), and 74 BNS. The court found the offenses grave in nature and rejected bail due to risks of witness tampering, evidence destruction, and potential absconding, citing that a co-accused was already absconding and investigation was ongoing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate - II, Attur

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Await Notice

    Judicial Magistrate - II, Attur

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Await Notice

    Judicial Magistrate - II, Attur

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Await Notice

    Judicial Magistrate - II, Attur

  7. 03-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 03-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 454/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate dismissed Murugesan's bail petition under Section 480 BNSS for offenses under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3), and 74 BNS. The court found the offenses grave in nature and rejected bail due to risks of witness tampering, evidence destruction, and potential absconding, citing that a co-accused was already absconding and investigation was ongoing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case