Sathish vs The Inspector of police, Ramapuram ps, Cr. No. 97/2026 Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 978/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 140(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNTR010019852026

Filing Number

1237/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

978/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Tiruvallur

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 20-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 140(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sathish

    Adv. D.lemuvel

  2. 2.Rakesh

  3. 3.Sairishi

  4. 4.Vikram

  5. 5.Vinoth

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Inspector of police, Ramapuram ps (Police Station), Cr. No. 97/2026 Advocate - Public Prosecutor

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur dismissed the bail petition of five accused persons charged under BNS sections 140(2), 115(2), 118(1), and 351(3) for alleged abduction and extortion in a property dispute. The court rejected the plea despite the complainant filing an affidavit withdrawing objections, reasoning that the offense is grave, investigation is in preliminary stage, and since it is a state offense, the complainant's settlement cannot override prosecution interests at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 978/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tiruvallur dismissed the bail petition of five accused persons charged under BNS sections 140(2), 115(2), 118(1), and 351(3) for alleged abduction and extortion in a property dispute. The court rejected the plea despite the complainant filing an affidavit withdrawing objections, reasoning that the offense is grave, investigation is in preliminary stage, and since it is a state offense, the complainant's settlement cannot override prosecution interests at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case