Lyannarappan v. State, Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Iyannarappan

2. Radhakrishnan ..Petitioners Vs State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, Barur Police Station Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No. 14 of 2026) ..Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 14 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioners:

Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondent:

Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 316(2), 318(3), 336(3), 337, 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.14 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are alleged to have fabricated government records and fraudulently dealt with property belonging to

the defacto complainant. Hence, the case was registered. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the allegations are not true and the dispute is purely civil in nature. The learned counsel would further submit that this is the second anticipatory bail application filed before this Court. It is also submitted that the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation and will not abscond or tamper with witnesses. Hence, he prayed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail application and the earlier application was already dismissed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.2308 of 2026 dated 20.02.2026. It is further submitted that there is no change in circumstances for reconsideration of the bail. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the allegations against the A1 & A3 are serious in nature involving fabrication of records. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel on either side, it is seen that this is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners. It is further seen that the earlier application was dismissed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No. 2308 of 2026, wherein this Court had already observed that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature involving fabrication of government records. Therefore, considering the earlier order of this Court and the absence of any change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 24-03-2026 NSL To

1. The Inspector of Police, Barur Police Station Krishnagiri District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 24-03-2026