Jeeva P K v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR 1.Jeeva P.K 2.K.Priya ... Petitioners Vs.

The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police ( Crime) Sathyamangalam Police Station, Erode District.

Crime No.11 of 2026 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.11 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners :

Mr.Bhavani For Respondent :

M/s.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioners herein apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 318(3), 318(4) and 351(4) of BNS,2023 in Crime No.11 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/4

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were engaged as Auditors for filing GST Returns of the defacto complainant and a sum of Rs.30,61,514.19/- was paid, however the petitioners herein have not filed the return and also not deposited the amount. Hence, the case has been registered. Subsequently, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners for seeking anticipatory bail.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had filed the GST returns vide order dated 14.02.2026. However, it appears that no documents have been produced to substantiate the same. The allegation against the petitioners is that they collected a sum of Rs.30.61 lakhs for filing the GST returns, but failed to file the returns and also failed to return the amount received.

4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they had collected only consulting fees and that false allegations have been made to avoid payment of such fees, the petitioners have not been able to produce any document to show that they were actually engaged to file the GST returns on behalf of the respondent or that the returns were filed. 2/4

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation in this case is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Considering the fact that huge amount has been received by this petitioner stating that he would file the GST Returns, however, he has swindled the same and has not filed the GST Returns, investigation in this case is pending, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner will hamper the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 26.02.2026 Vv To

1. The Inspector of Police ( Crime) Sathyamangalam Police Station, Erode District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

Vv 26.02.2026 4/4