MOHANRAJ vs The Inspector of Police Perumanallur Police Station — 263/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2),118(1),191(2),296(b),351. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 12th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNTI130008982026
e-Filing Number
16-02-2026
Filing Number
898/2026
Filing Date
27-Feb-2026
Registration No
263/2026
Registration Date
27-Feb-2026
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Avinashi
Judge
2-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 19-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
42
Police Station
Perumanallur Police Station
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MOHANRAJ
Adv. Jeeva rathinam
-
2.JISHNU
Adv. Jeeva rathinam
-
3.MUTHU
Adv. Jeeva rathinam
-
4.SOWKATH ALI
Adv. Jeeva rathinam
Respondent(s)
-
1.The Inspector of Police Perumanallur Police Station
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court of Avinashi dismissed the bail petition filed by four accused persons (Mohanraj, Jishnu, Muthu, and Sougath Ali) who were arrested on 07.02.2026 and charged under various BNS sections. The court rejected bail based on findings that the accused are habitual offenders with several previous cases of similar nature, creating a high probability they would abscond, re-offend, or tamper with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate
-
10-Mar-2026
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Mar-2026
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Mar-2026
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Mar-2026
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
02-Mar-2026
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
27-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 263/2026
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court of Avinashi dismissed the bail petition filed by four accused persons (Mohanraj, Jishnu, Muthu, and Sougath Ali) who were arrested on 07.02.2026 and charged under various BNS sections. The court rejected bail based on findings that the accused are habitual offenders with several previous cases of similar nature, creating a high probability they would abscond, re-offend, or tamper with witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts