Inspector of Police Kallal P.S vs Pethuraj — 216/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 23rd March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNSV190005012026
Filing Number
501/2026
Filing Date
10-Mar-2026
Registration No
216/2026
Registration Date
10-Mar-2026
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi
Judge
5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
Decision Date
23-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 29-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
256
Police Station
Kallal Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Inspector of Police Kallal P.S
Respondent(s)
-
1.Pethuraj
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Mar-2026
IA orderView PDF
Case 216/2026 Summary: The Judicial Magistrate of Karaikudi granted bail to Pethuraj (Accused No.2) in a temple bell theft case (Crime 256/2025). The court found that while Pethuraj was implicated primarily based on the first accused's confession statement, there was no strong independent evidence connecting him to the alleged offense under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Since investigation was substantially complete and continued detention was unwarranted, bail was allowed subject to stringent conditions including a Rs. 1 lakh bond, twice-daily police reporting, non-absconding, witness non-interference, and court jurisdiction restrictions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
17-Mar-2026
Enquiry
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
13-Mar-2026
Appearance
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
12-Mar-2026
Appearance
Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
-
10-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 216/2026
Case 216/2026 Summary: The Judicial Magistrate of Karaikudi granted bail to Pethuraj (Accused No.2) in a temple bell theft case (Crime 256/2025). The court found that while Pethuraj was implicated primarily based on the first accused's confession statement, there was no strong independent evidence connecting him to the alleged offense under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Since investigation was substantially complete and continued detention was unwarranted, bail was allowed subject to stringent conditions including a Rs. 1 lakh bond, twice-daily police reporting, non-absconding, witness non-interference, and court jurisdiction restrictions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts