MURUGANANTHAM vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — 441/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 29th May 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNTV010009052026

e-Filing Number

26-05-2026

Filing Number

620/2026

Filing Date

26-May-2026

Registration No

441/2026

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

44

Police Station

KALAPPAL P.S.,

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 303(2)
Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 Section 21(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MURUGANANTHAM

    Adv. RAJESHKUMAR P

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-May-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Case 441/2026 Summary: The court granted anticipatory bail to Muruganantham, accused of theft of sand without proper license under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. Despite the prosecution's objections regarding witness tampering and prior pending cases, the court found the circumstances favorable for bail. The petitioner must deposit Rs. 2,500 to the District Mineral Foundation Trust, execute a Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties, report daily to police for one month, and comply with conditions including non-tampering with evidence and non-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. 441/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 441/2026 Summary: The court granted anticipatory bail to Muruganantham, accused of theft of sand without proper license under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. Despite the prosecution's objections regarding witness tampering and prior pending cases, the court found the circumstances favorable for bail. The petitioner must deposit Rs. 2,500 to the District Mineral Foundation Trust, execute a Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties, report daily to police for one month, and comply with conditions including non-tampering with evidence and non-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