Thiruvennainallur P.S. vs Palaniraj — 215/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279, 304(A). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 25th March 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 25-Mar-2026 this date has passed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNVP340002642024

Filing Number

225/2024

Filing Date

04-May-2023

Registration No

215/2024

Registration Date

04-Jun-2023

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvennainallur

Judge

1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

Last updated 25-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279, 304(A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Thiruvennainallur P.S.

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Palaniraj

Case History

  1. 25-Mar-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  3. 04-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  4. 23-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  6. 19-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  7. 10-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  8. 26-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  9. 05-Nov-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  10. 08-Oct-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  11. 10-Sep-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  12. 13-Aug-2025

    Part Heard

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  13. 16-Jul-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  14. 16-Jul-2025

    DepositionView PDF

    Summary: This is a witness deposition (Judicial Form No. 53) in Criminal Case No. 215/2024 before the District Court at Tiruvannamalai, dated July 16, 2025. Witness Bakiyaraj, a 42-year-old bakery shop owner, testified regarding a road accident involving a vehicle (TN28AA9533) that struck a person named Deivamani on May 4, 2023, but recanted his earlier police statement, claiming he did not directly witness the accident. The court permitted cross-examination and treated his testimony as hostile evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  15. 16-Jul-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  16. 25-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  17. 28-May-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  18. 02-May-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  19. 14-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  20. 12-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  21. 22-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  22. 20-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  23. 28-Oct-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  24. 08-Oct-2024

    Questioning

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  25. 19-Sep-2024

    Questioning

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  26. 27-Aug-2024

    Service Pending-Notice

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  27. 29-Jul-2024

    Service Pending-Notice

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  28. 25-Apr-2024

    Service Pending-Summon

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  29. 12-Mar-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 04-May-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 215/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: This is a witness deposition (Judicial Form No. 53) in Criminal Case No. 215/2024 before the District Court at Tiruvannamalai, dated July 16, 2025. Witness Bakiyaraj, a 42-year-old bakery shop owner, testified regarding a road accident involving a vehicle (TN28AA9533) that struck a person named Deivamani on May 4, 2023, but recanted his earlier police statement, claiming he did not directly witness the accident. The court permitted cross-examination and treated his testimony as hostile evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case