Murugan vs The Inspector of police, Pattabiram ps, Cr. No.99/2026 Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 844/2026

Case under Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Acts 2003 Section 24(1),6(b), r/w 123. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNTR010016372026

Filing Number

1038/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

844/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Tiruvallur

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 18-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Acts 2003 Section 24(1),6(b), r/w 123

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Murugan

    Adv. V. Balaji

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Inspector of police, Pattabiram ps (Police Station), Cr. No.99/2026 Advocate - Public Prosecutor

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Case Summary The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur dismissed Murugan's bail petition in a case involving illegal possession of banned tobacco products worth Rs. 8,000/-. The court denied bail considering the grave nature of the offense under BNS §123 and COTPA Act §24(1), ongoing investigation, the petitioner's two previous criminal cases, and risk of absconding that could compromise investigations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 03-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 844/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur dismissed Murugan's bail petition in a case involving illegal possession of banned tobacco products worth Rs. 8,000/-. The court denied bail considering the grave nature of the offense under BNS §123 and COTPA Act §24(1), ongoing investigation, the petitioner's two previous criminal cases, and risk of absconding that could compromise investigations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case