SATHISH vs State Government rep by the inspector of police, TAMIL UNIVERSITY POLICE STATION Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 1729/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 316(2), 318(4). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 11th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNTJ010021662026
e-Filing Number
04-03-2026
Filing Number
1685/2026
Filing Date
04-03-2026
Registration No
1729/2026
Registration Date
06-03-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Thanjavur
Judge
1-Principal District Judge, Thanjavur
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
FIR Details
FIR Number
34
Police Station
Thanjavur Tamil University Police Station
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SATHISH
Adv. Rajaguru D
Respondent(s)
State Government rep by the inspector of police, TAMIL UNIVERSITY POLICE STATION Advocate - Public Prosecutor
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge, Thanjavur
Disposed
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 07-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Principal Sessions Judge of Thanjavur dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Sathish, who was charged under sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS for allegedly cheating by hiring centering materials worth Rs. 4,00,000 and failing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 89,487. The court found that since the cheated amount remained unrecovered and investigation was still pending, combined with strong prosecution objections, granting anticipatory bail was undesirable considering the nature and gravity of the offence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Principal Sessions Judge of Thanjavur dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Sathish, who was charged under sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS for allegedly cheating by hiring centering materials worth Rs. 4,00,000 and failing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 89,487. The court found that since the cheated amount remained unrecovered and investigation was still pending, combined with strong prosecution objections, granting anticipatory bail was undesirable considering the nature and gravity of the offence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts