Pandi vs Police Department rep by Inspector of police, Senthamaram PS Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 755/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 09th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNTS010012412026
Filing Number
990/2026
Filing Date
05-03-2026
Registration No
755/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Tenkasi
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pandi
Adv. Thiru.S.Pasumpon Selvakumar
Respondent(s)
Police Department rep by Inspector of police, Senthamaram PS (Police Station) Advocate - Public Prosecutor
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Disposed
Enquiry
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 05-03-2026 | Enquiry |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Tenkasi Sessions Court dismissed the bail petition of Pandi (accused A2), who was arrested for forging insurance policies under IPC sections 465, 468, 469, and 420. The court found credible evidence that the accused, acting as an insurance agent, fabricated fake motor insurance policies and defrauded HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company. Rejecting bail despite 39 days of incarceration and a prior High Court dismissal, the court determined that custodial interrogation remained necessary for the ongoing investigation, considering the gravity of the offense and the accused's criminal antecedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Tenkasi Sessions Court dismissed the bail petition of Pandi (accused A2), who was arrested for forging insurance policies under IPC sections 465, 468, 469, and 420. The court found credible evidence that the accused, acting as an insurance agent, fabricated fake motor insurance policies and defrauded HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company. Rejecting bail despite 39 days of incarceration and a prior High Court dismissal, the court determined that custodial interrogation remained necessary for the ongoing investigation, considering the gravity of the offense and the accused's criminal antecedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts