Sundarraj vs The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar A.W.P.S — 795/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNVR010013972026

Filing Number

1046/2026

Filing Date

16-Mar-2026

Registration No

795/2026

Registration Date

16-Mar-2026

Court

Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dismissed

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

12

Police Station

All Women Police Station, Virudhunagar.

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 69,318(4),296(b),351(3),77
Information Technology Act 2000 Section 67

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sundarraj

    Adv. G.Mariappan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar A.W.P.S

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The court dismissed Sundarraj's bail petition under Section 483 BNSS. Sundarraj was accused of cheating a woman of ₹29,00,000 by falsely promising marriage while already married, spending her money on his house, and threatening her when she demanded repayment. The court found the offense grave in nature with investigation at an early stage, making bail inappropriate despite the accused's short custody period of 5 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 795/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed Sundarraj's bail petition under Section 483 BNSS. Sundarraj was accused of cheating a woman of ₹29,00,000 by falsely promising marriage while already married, spending her money on his house, and threatening her when she demanded repayment. The court found the offense grave in nature with investigation at an early stage, making bail inappropriate despite the accused's short custody period of 5 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case