Palanivel vs State Government rep by the inspector of police, Thiruneelakudi ps Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 1792/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 11th March 2026.

Case disposedSub Stage

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNTJ010023252026

Filing Number

1802/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

1792/2026

Registration Date

10-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Thanjavur

Judge

1-Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 19-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

156

Police Station

Thiruneelakudi Police Station

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Palanivel

    Adv. Muthuvel N

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Government rep by the inspector of police, Thiruneelakudi ps (Police Station) Advocate - Public Prosecutor

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, dismissed the bail petition of Palanivel, who was arrested for possession of large quantities of banned tobacco products under BNS Section 123 and the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. The court found that the gravity of the offence, the large quantity of contraband seized, the early stage of investigation (only four days after arrest), and the prosecution's strong objections warranted denial of bail in the interest of public welfare. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1792/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, dismissed the bail petition of Palanivel, who was arrested for possession of large quantities of banned tobacco products under BNS Section 123 and the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. The court found that the gravity of the offence, the large quantity of contraband seized, the early stage of investigation (only four days after arrest), and the prosecution's strong objections warranted denial of bail in the interest of public welfare. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case