JAYAMANI vs The Inspector of Police, Uthukottai Police station, Crime No. 35/2026 Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 745/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 12th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNTR010014652026
e-Filing Number
19-02-2026
Filing Number
939/2026
Filing Date
19-02-2026
Registration No
745/2026
Registration Date
20-02-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Tiruvallur
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JAYAMANI
Adv. Magesh D
Abraham
Adv. Magesh D
Respondent(s)
The Inspector of Police, Uthukottai Police station, Crime No. 35/2026 Advocate - Public Prosecutor
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 02-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 24-02-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners (Jayamani and Abraham) in a land dispute case involving assault charges under BNS sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), and 351(3). The court imposed conditions including a Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties, surrender within 15 days, and daily police reporting for 30 days, considering that investigation was substantially complete, the accused were first offenders and local residents, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners (Jayamani and Abraham) in a land dispute case involving assault charges under BNS sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), and 351(3). The court imposed conditions including a Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties, surrender within 15 days, and daily police reporting for 30 days, considering that investigation was substantially complete, the accused were first offenders and local residents, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts