The Madras High Court has granted regular bail to Ankur Kumar Jain, an accused in a case involving alleged non-refund of coaching fees and deposits, after finding that the police failed to furnish written grounds of arrest as required by the Constitution. Justice N. Ramesh also directed the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police (Law and Order) to ensure that officers comply with the legal requirements governing arrests and face departmental proceedings for violations.
In its October 7 order, the Court held that the arrest and subsequent remand were vitiated because the arrest memo did not communicate the specific allegations against Jain.
Background
The case arose from an arrangement between FIITJEE Limited and Suguna PIP School in Coimbatore for integrated coaching for students preparing for the JEE and NEET examinations. Parents had reportedly paid refundable caution deposits of ₹1 lakh each, which were to be returned within 60 days after completion of the course.
Following a complaint that the deposit had not been refunded, Peelamedu Police registered Crime No. 215 of 2026 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The police alleged that 262 parents had suffered losses amounting to ₹2.62 crore.
Jain, who was arrayed as the third accused, was not named in the original complaint or the First Information Report. He contended that he had been employed by FIITJEE since 2000 and that the deposits had been paid into the company's account.
The Court examined the arrest memo served on Jain while he was lodged in Puzhal Central Prison in connection with another case. The memo referred to the crime number and the alleged offence but did not specify the acts attributed to him. The police argued that its contents had been explained to him orally in English.
Rejecting this explanation, Justice N. Ramesh held that an oral explanation could not replace the requirement of written grounds of arrest communicated in a language the arrested person understood.
The Court observed:
"The memo does not say what the petitioner is alleged to have done, to whom, when, in what capacity, or on what material. It does not mention the agreement, the parents, the deposits or the amount."
Relying on Supreme Court rulings, including Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the failure violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court also disapproved of the police's assertion that Jain was likely to abscond because he was from North India, observing that a person's place of origin was not a ground for apprehending flight.
Justice N. Ramesh noted that an earlier order had already directed the police leadership to replace the existing arrest memo with a form requiring the grounds of arrest to be recorded in detail. The continued use of the old format prompted the Court to seek a compliance report from the DGP and information about police training and the implementation of relevant instructions.
The DGP was also directed to instruct police units across Tamil Nadu that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest would be treated as dereliction of duty and could invite departmental proceedings.
The High Court allowed Jain's bail petition and ordered his release on a bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties for the same amount, subject to conditions governing cooperation with the investigation, travel outside India, contact with witnesses and interference with evidence.
The Court clarified that its observations did not determine the merits of the allegations or Jain's personal role in the alleged transactions.
The matter was directed to be listed for reporting compliance on November 10, 2026.
Case Details
- Case Title: Ankur Kumar Jain v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, E2 Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore & Another
- Case Number: Criminal Original Petition No. 27525 of 2026
- Judge: Justice N. Ramesh
- Decision Date: October 7, 2026
