Marudhamalai vs SHO TINDIVANAM PS — 18/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 415(3). Disposed: Uncontested--Made Over on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLA - Criminal Appeal

CNR: TNVP010067282025

e-Filing Number

04-12-2025

Filing Number

6012/2025

Filing Date

15-Dec-2025

Registration No

18/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Viluppuram

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Made Over

Last updated 25-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 415(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Marudhamalai

    Adv. S SURESH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHO (Station House Officer) TINDIVANAM PS (Police Station)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    BailView PDF

    The Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram allowed the petition to suspend the sentence of Marudhamalai, who was convicted under BNS sections 309(6) and 351(3) with a 3-year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000. The court suspended the sentence on condition that the appellant execute a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and appear before the I Additional District and Sessions Court on 01.04.2026, considering his right to appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Appearance

    Principal District Judge

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 15-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 18/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram allowed the petition to suspend the sentence of Marudhamalai, who was convicted under BNS sections 309(6) and 351(3) with a 3-year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000. The court suspended the sentence on condition that the appellant execute a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and appear before the I Additional District and Sessions Court on 01.04.2026, considering his right to appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case