Inspector of Police Kallal P.S vs Pethuraj — 220/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 23rd March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNSV190005052026
Filing Number
505/2026
Filing Date
10-03-2026
Registration No
220/2026
Registration Date
10-03-2026
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi
Judge
5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
FIR Details
FIR Number
252
Police Station
Kallal Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police Kallal P.S
Respondent(s)
Pethuraj
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
Disposed
Enquiry
Appearance
Appearance
Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 13-03-2026 | Appearance |
| 12-03-2026 | Appearance |
| 10-03-2026 | Appearance |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 220/2026: The Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi granted bail to Pethuraj (Accused No. 2) in a temple bell theft case, finding that while he was implicated based on co-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, and investigation had substantially progressed. The court balanced the gravity of allegations against his personal liberty and imposed stringent conditions including Rs. 1 lakh bond with sureties, twice-daily police reporting, non-absconding undertaking, and restrictions on witness contact and jurisdiction-leaving. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 220/2026: The Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi granted bail to Pethuraj (Accused No. 2) in a temple bell theft case, finding that while he was implicated based on co-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, and investigation had substantially progressed. The court balanced the gravity of allegations against his personal liberty and imposed stringent conditions including Rs. 1 lakh bond with sureties, twice-daily police reporting, non-absconding undertaking, and restrictions on witness contact and jurisdiction-leaving. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts