Ragu vs Forest Range Sivagangai — 363/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 497,503. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNSV020005652026

Filing Number

566/2026

Filing Date

06-Feb-2026

Registration No

363/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivagangai

Judge

5-Judicial Magistrate No.I

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 10-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 497,503

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ragu

    Adv. Ananthakumar B

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Forest Range Sivagangai

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    The Judicial Magistrate court allowed Ragu's petition and granted him interim custody of a Vivo V2204 mobile phone seized during a Wildlife Protection Act investigation, after verifying his ownership through Aadhar identity and tax invoice documents. The court imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to execute a Rs.10,000 bond with surety, provide photographs and CD of the property, execute a panchanama before the Head Clerk, and not transfer or alter the property while producing it as directed by the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  6. 04-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  7. 03-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  8. 02-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  9. 27-Feb-2026

    Enquiry

    Judicial Magistrate No.I

  10. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 06-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 363/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate court allowed Ragu's petition and granted him interim custody of a Vivo V2204 mobile phone seized during a Wildlife Protection Act investigation, after verifying his ownership through Aadhar identity and tax invoice documents. The court imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to execute a Rs.10,000 bond with surety, provide photographs and CD of the property, execute a panchanama before the Head Clerk, and not transfer or alter the property while producing it as directed by the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case