MARJ vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEEDAMANGALAM PS. — 431/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 29th May 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNTV010008992026

Filing Number

614/2026

Filing Date

26-May-2026

Registration No

431/2026

Registration Date

26-May-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Tiruvarur

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

29-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

100

Police Station

NEEDAMANGALAM P.S.,

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 109, 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 191(3), 296(b), 324(4), 351(3)
Tn Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 Section 4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MARJ

    Adv. Thiru. S.B.Dillibabu, BCA.,B.L,

  2. 2.Sivaraj

  3. 3.Duraisingam

  4. 4.Deepakkumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEEDAMANGALAM PS (Police Station).

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-May-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    The court granted bail to the three accused (Marj, Sivaraj, and Duraisingam) in a case involving charges of harassment, attempted murder, and rioting under the SC/ST (PoA) Act and BNS provisions. The court imposed strict conditions including Rs. 15,000 bonds with sureties, daily police reporting for one month, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-May-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 26-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 26-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 431/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted bail to the three accused (Marj, Sivaraj, and Duraisingam) in a case involving charges of harassment, attempted murder, and rioting under the SC/ST (PoA) Act and BNS provisions. The court imposed strict conditions including Rs. 15,000 bonds with sureties, daily police reporting for one month, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case