Chenrayan v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Chenrayan S/o.Ganapathi, No. 2/25A, Kakangarai Post, Tirupathur District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police Kandili Police Station, Kandili, Tirupathur District.

(Crime No. 56 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 56 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kandili Police Station, Kandili, Tirupathur District and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.G.Vinodhkumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 326 of BNS (430 of IPC) and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No.56 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found manufacturing artificial soil on his land, thereby causing a diminution of the water supply for agricultural or manufacturing purposes. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and that he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that there are five previous cases against the petitioner and has been doing similar nature of offences. He further submitted that the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2026 in Crl.OP.No.6987 of 2026. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) it is pellucid that the petitioner has misused the liberty which had been granted by this Court in earlier point of time. Hence, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and there is no change of circumstances after the dismissal of the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail petition, Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner do not deserve anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 05-06-2026 Vv

1. The Inspector of Police Kandili Police Station, Kandili, Tirupathur District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VV 05-06-2026