Hareesh v. State Rep By, The Inspector Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Hareesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, T-2, Chrompet Police Station, Chrompet, Chennai-60047 Crime No.not known of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest by the Respondent police, pending investigation of the case in Crime No.not known of 2026 on the file of the Respondent and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Kartheeban G Mr.G.Peramaiyan For Intervenor For Respondent(s):

Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in C.No.866/DC TBM/DC PG/25 dated 04.12.2025 seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner collected a huge amount of Rs.13 lakhs as an investment for conducting a cooking oil business and subsequently, without carrying out any business activities, cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already supplied certain cooking oil to the defacto complainant, and for that purpose alone the money was paid by the defacto scomplainant, and therefore it is not a case of cheating. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that, under the guise of conducting a cooking oil business, the petitioner collected a sum of Rs.13 lakhs, and he has also filed some documents to show that the payments were

made by the defacto complainant. However, the petitioner has siphoned off the money paid by the defacto complainant. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that a huge amount of Rs.13 lakhs is involved in this case and the investigation is pending, so far no money is recovered. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.I have also gone through the statements filed and other connected materials. It is revealed that the petitioner has collected a huge amount of Rs.13 lakhs and subsequently siphoned off the money and cheated the defacto complainant. Considering the above facts and circumstances of this case and since the investigation is pending, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 12-02-2026 GBI 1/2

To 1.State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, T-2, Chrompet Police Station, Chrompet, Chennai-60047 Crime No.not known of 2026 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

GBI 12-02-2026