Manikandan vs SHO Town Police Station Villupuram. — 1019/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 24th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNVP010014922026
Filing Number
1245/2026
Filing Date
09-Mar-2026
Registration No
1019/2026
Registration Date
09-Mar-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Viluppuram
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
65
Police Station
Villupuram Town P.S
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Manikandan
Adv. Ramachandran. P
Respondent(s)
-
1.SHO (Station House Officer) Town Police Station Villupuram.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
BailView PDF
Case Summary: CMP.No.1019/2026 Court Decision: The Principal Sessions Judge dismissed Manikandan's bail petition on March 24, 2026. The court found that while procedural irregularities existed in the arrest (contradictions in arrest location and delayed furnishing of grounds of arrest), the gravity of the alleged offense, the early investigation stage, risk of witness tampering, and one accused still absconding justified continued judicial custody. Key Facts: Manikandan, a suspended home guard police officer, was arrested for armed robbery of 4kg+ gold and ₹5.5 lakh cash. He was allegedly one of two masterminds among nine accused, with eight arrested. The court rejected arguments that he was falsely implicated based solely on a co-accused's confession, noting the offense's seriousness warranted custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District Judge
-
23-Mar-2026
Appearance
Principal District Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Appearance
Principal District Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 1019/2026
Case Summary: CMP.No.1019/2026 Court Decision: The Principal Sessions Judge dismissed Manikandan's bail petition on March 24, 2026. The court found that while procedural irregularities existed in the arrest (contradictions in arrest location and delayed furnishing of grounds of arrest), the gravity of the alleged offense, the early investigation stage, risk of witness tampering, and one accused still absconding justified continued judicial custody. Key Facts: Manikandan, a suspended home guard police officer, was arrested for armed robbery of 4kg+ gold and ₹5.5 lakh cash. He was allegedly one of two masterminds among nine accused, with eight arrested. The court rejected arguments that he was falsely implicated based solely on a co-accused's confession, noting the offense's seriousness warranted custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts