Ramu vs The Inspector of Police, Pathirived P.S Advocate - APP — 105/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 497,503. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 06th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNTR360002502026
Filing Number
241/2026
Filing Date
25-02-2026
Registration No
105/2026
Registration Date
25-02-2026
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Gummidipoondi
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Gummidipoondi
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramu
Adv. T. Magendiran
Respondent(s)
The Inspector of Police, Pathirived P.S Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Gummidipoondi
Disposed
Orders
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-03-2026 | Orders |
| 02-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 25-02-2026 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Gummidipoondi allowed the petitioner's petition and ordered return of stolen gold jewelry and silver ornaments seized by police to the petitioner as interim custody. The court, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, held that valuable articles should not remain in police custody for years during investigation, and the owner would suffer if not returned. The petitioner must execute a ₹50,000 bond with two sureties, not alter the property, provide photographs, and produce it in court as required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Gummidipoondi allowed the petitioner's petition and ordered return of stolen gold jewelry and silver ornaments seized by police to the petitioner as interim custody. The court, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, held that valuable articles should not remain in police custody for years during investigation, and the owner would suffer if not returned. The petitioner must execute a ₹50,000 bond with two sureties, not alter the property, provide photographs, and produce it in court as required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts