The Madras High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of former Tamil Nadu Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi. The case concerns alleged collection of money from private schools in return for government approvals. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that the stage of the investigation did not justify pre-arrest protection.
Background
Crime No. 64 of 2026 is being probed by the Central Crime Branch-II, Chennai. It began with a complaint that large sums were collected by Arasa Kumar (A1), Muthukumar (A2) and others to secure permanent recognition, upgradation and DTCP/CMDA approvals for private schools. Poyyamozhi was not named in the original FIR. Police later said they found material linking him to the accused and added Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as amended in 2018. His premises were searched and he was questioned for over eight hours before approaching the High Court, fearing arrest.
Senior Counsel P. Wilson said the petitioner had cooperated fully, produced records and was not a flight risk. He argued the case rests on documents, so custody was unnecessary, and also said the probe should be handled by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC).
State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan told the court that 177 victims had been identified and that about Rs.400 crore was allegedly collected. He said money was handed to the petitioner and that the absconding A2 was being shielded by him.
The court first rejected the DVAC argument, noting that the police force has a division of work and that corruption cases are not the DVAC’s exclusive domain. It then pointed to statements recorded before a Magistrate under Section 183(5) of the BNSS, which indicated that funds were collected under the head “party fund”. It also noted relatives’ statements suggesting A2 was kept under the petitioner’s care.
Relying on rulings such as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, Anil Sharma, P. Chidambaram and Devinder Kumar Bansal, the judge said:
“Analysis of the law on the point shows that there has been a tectonic jurisprudential shift in the law relating to anticipatory bail in matters relating to corruption. While the power to grant anticipatory bail is wide and expansive, the scope of discretion to grant it has reduced when applications are filed in matters relating to corruption or socio-economic offences.”
The court added that granting protection at this stage could paralyse the investigation, especially while A2 had not been apprehended.
Turning to the petitioner’s cooperation, the court observed:
“The fact that the petitioner herein had co-operated with the interrogation so far is no ground to grant anticipatory bail as he faces accusation of having received monies under the name and style ‘party fund’. As to who is the final destination of this alleged “party fund” cannot be unearthed unless and until the petitioner is interrogated. As the investigation is still at its nascent stage and as new facts are being unearthed, this court is of the view that grant of anticipatory bail would not be fit and proper.”
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
