Ponraj vs The Inspector of police, T-1, Ambattur ps, Chennai, Cr. No. 73/2026 Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 929/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 274, 275, 123. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 12th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNTR010018702026
Filing Number
1189/2026
Filing Date
04-03-2026
Registration No
929/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Tiruvallur
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
FIR Details
FIR Number
73
Police Station
Ambattur P.S.
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ponraj
Adv. K.Suriya
Respondent(s)
The Inspector of police, T-1, Ambattur ps (Police Station), Chennai, Cr. No. 73/2026 Advocate - Public Prosecutor
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 07-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvalur dismissed Ponraj's bail petition under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. The petitioner was arrested for illegal possession of 96 kg of banned tobacco products worth ₹3,00,000 under Sections 274, 275, 123 of BNS and COTPA Act. The court declined bail citing the grave nature of the offence, pending investigation, pending detention proposal under Act 14 of 1982, huge property value involved, and that the first remand period remained incomplete. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvalur dismissed Ponraj's bail petition under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. The petitioner was arrested for illegal possession of 96 kg of banned tobacco products worth ₹3,00,000 under Sections 274, 275, 123 of BNS and COTPA Act. The court declined bail citing the grave nature of the offence, pending investigation, pending detention proposal under Act 14 of 1982, huge property value involved, and that the first remand period remained incomplete. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts