I Selvamani vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Tiruppur RURAL PS — 510/2026
Case under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Section 316(2),336(2),and340(2). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 11th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNTI180010832026
e-Filing Number
03-03-2026
Filing Number
730/2026
Filing Date
03-Mar-2026
Registration No
510/2026
Registration Date
05-Mar-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Tiruppur
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
11-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 12-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.I Selvamani
Adv. Sundareswaran M
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Tiruppur RURAL PS (Police Station)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur dismissed Selvamani's bail petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case involving charges under Sections 316(2), 336(2), and 340(2) of BNS. The petitioner was accused of hiring a car, manipulating its registration number, and handing it to a co-accused; the court found the nature and gravity of the offense, ongoing investigation stage, and lack of changed circumstances (the co-accused's anticipatory bail was similarly dismissed) warranted continued detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
07-Mar-2026
Issue of Service
Principal District Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 510/2026
Case Summary The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur dismissed Selvamani's bail petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case involving charges under Sections 316(2), 336(2), and 340(2) of BNS. The petitioner was accused of hiring a car, manipulating its registration number, and handing it to a co-accused; the court found the nature and gravity of the offense, ongoing investigation stage, and lack of changed circumstances (the co-accused's anticipatory bail was similarly dismissed) warranted continued detention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts