Bharathiraja vs Inspector of Police Devakottai Taluk P.S — 505/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483,. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 17th March 2026.

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNSV010008622026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

687/2026

Filing Date

09-03-2026

Registration No

505/2026

Registration Date

10-03-2026

Court

District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI

Decision Date

17th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

FIR Details

FIR Number

59

Police Station

Devakottai Taluk Police Station

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483,

Petitioner(s)

Bharathiraja

Adv. Bharathi Kannan KR

Govindarajan

Respondent(s)

Inspector of Police Devakottai Taluk P.S

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI

17-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

Enquiry

11-03-2026

Enquiry

10-03-2026

Issue of Service

Final Orders / Judgements

17-03-2026
Bail Bond/Personal Bond

The Principal Sessions Judge granted bail to two accused (Bharathiraja and Govindarajan) charged with criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, and damage to property under BNS sections 126(2), 324(2), 140(3), and 351(3). The court found that the dispute arose from a money disagreement, no one sustained injuries, the accused had no prior criminal records, and they had been in custody since March 8, 2026. The court imposed stringent conditions including Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties each, daily police station reporting for 30 days, restrictions on leaving Tamil Nadu, and prohibitions on witness intimidation. The intervening petition opposing the bail was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal Sessions Judge granted bail to two accused (Bharathiraja and Govindarajan) charged with criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, and damage to property under BNS sections 126(2), 324(2), 140(3), and 351(3). The court found that the dispute arose from a money disagreement, no one sustained injuries, the accused had no prior criminal records, and they had been in custody since March 8, 2026. The court imposed stringent conditions including Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties each, daily police station reporting for 30 days, restrictions on leaving Tamil Nadu, and prohibitions on witness intimidation. The intervening petition opposing the bail was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case