Harihara Sudhan vs Police Department rep by Inspector of police, Tenkasi PS — 797/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNTS010013002026

Filing Number

1034/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

797/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Tenkasi

Judge

2-Additional District Session Judge

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 10-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

1.Harihara Sudhan

Respondent(s)

1.Police Department rep by Inspector of police, Tenkasi PS (Police Station)

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
18-Mar-2026

Copy of OrderView PDF

The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenkasi granted bail to Harihara Sudhan (Accused No. 3), who had been in judicial custody for ten months in a murder case involving revenge-related offenses under BNS 2023 sections 103(2), 296(b), 351(3), and 61(2). The court found that despite prosecution concerns about witness tampering and flight risk, the extended incarceration period and early case stage warranted bail, subject to conditions including a Rs. 20,000 bond, two sureties, daily police reporting, and restrictions against evidence tampering or absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
18-Mar-2026

Disposed

Additional District Session Judge
13-Mar-2026

Orders

Additional District Session Judge
10-Mar-2026

Issue of Service

Additional District Session Judge
07-Mar-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
07-Mar-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 797/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenkasi granted bail to Harihara Sudhan (Accused No. 3), who had been in judicial custody for ten months in a murder case involving revenge-related offenses under BNS 2023 sections 103(2), 296(b), 351(3), and 61(2). The court found that despite prosecution concerns about witness tampering and flight risk, the extended incarceration period and early case stage warranted bail, subject to conditions including a Rs. 20,000 bond, two sureties, daily police reporting, and restrictions against evidence tampering or absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.