Anthony raj vs Police Department rep by Inspector of police, Puliyangudi PS Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 768/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNTS010012362026

e-Filing Number

05-03-2026

Filing Number

985/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

768/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Tenkasi

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 11-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Anthony raj

    Adv. AMBIKA C

  2. 2.Ponnammal

    Adv. AMBIKA C

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Police Department rep by Inspector of police, Puliyangudi PS (Police Station) Advocate - Public Prosecutor

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Tenkasi granted anticipatory bail to Anthony Raj and Ponnammal in a case involving alleged assault under BNS sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) and TNPHW Act section 4. The court found the incident arose from a common pathway dispute with no serious injuries, the petitioners had no prior criminal history, and the matter involved counter-cases, warranting bail subject to conditions including Rs. 10,000 bond with sureties, daily police reporting for one month, and surrender within 15 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 768/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Principal Sessions Judge, Tenkasi granted anticipatory bail to Anthony Raj and Ponnammal in a case involving alleged assault under BNS sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2) and TNPHW Act section 4. The court found the incident arose from a common pathway dispute with no serious injuries, the petitioners had no prior criminal history, and the matter involved counter-cases, warranting bail subject to conditions including Rs. 10,000 bond with sureties, daily police reporting for one month, and surrender within 15 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case