The State Of Tamilnadu Rep Inspector Of Police E5 Sholavaram Cr No 366 2019 vs Accused Ranjithkumar And 4 Others — 87/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 147,148,323,324,427,506(II). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 08th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTR270006202024
Next Hearing
08th April 2026
e-Filing Number
06-02-2024
Filing Number
617/2024
Filing Date
15-02-2024
Registration No
87/2024
Registration Date
15-02-2024
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Ponneri
Judge
4-Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State Of Tamilnadu Rep Inspector Of Police E5 Sholavaram Cr No 366 2019
Respondent(s)
Accused Ranjithkumar And 4 Others
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 11-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
This is a witness deposition (P.W. 7) in Criminal Case No. 87/2024 before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri, dated 06/03/2026. The prosecution witness testified that five individuals attacked him and his employer at a tea shop on 23.06.2019, causing injuries to multiple people including the employer who received four stitches on his head. The witness underwent cross-examination where the defense questioned the credibility of his account, suggesting inconsistencies regarding the presence of accused persons and the reliability of photographic evidence presented (marked as Exhibit A.2). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a witness deposition (P.W. 7) in Criminal Case No. 87/2024 before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri, dated 06/03/2026. The prosecution witness testified that five individuals attacked him and his employer at a tea shop on 23.06.2019, causing injuries to multiple people including the employer who received four stitches on his head. The witness underwent cross-examination where the defense questioned the credibility of his account, suggesting inconsistencies regarding the presence of accused persons and the reliability of photographic evidence presented (marked as Exhibit A.2). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts