The Madras High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused in a Coimbatore cheating case involving unrefunded student caution deposits. The court found that police never gave him written grounds for his arrest. Justice N. Ramesh also criticised the police for claiming that the petitioner might flee because he was “a North Indian.”
FIITJEE Limited ran JEE and NEET coaching with Suguna PIP School in Coimbatore. Each parent paid a refundable caution deposit of Rs 1 lakh. The complainant, Vikram D.G., did not get his money back after the course ended, and Peelamedu police registered a cheating case in May 2026.
Police subsequently named him as the third accused, alleging that he signed a 2011 agreement with the school on behalf of FIITJEE Limited. They claimed that he and the other two accused were responsible for losses of ₹2.62 crore to 262 parents. The petitioner maintained that he was a salaried employee and that frozen company accounts prevented refunds. He was already in Puzhal Central Prison in a separate Chennai case when Coimbatore police formally arrested him in this case on August 11, 2026.
The only document served on the petitioner was a printed arrest memo in Tamil, a language he said he could not read. The column meant to specify the particulars of the offence and the reasons for arrest contained only the entry ‘for the offence shown in column 3’. That column referred to the crime number and Section 420 IPC, without setting out the specific allegations against him. The police contended that the memo’s contents had been explained to him orally in English.
The Court relied on Supreme Court rulings, including Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which require written grounds of arrest to be furnished in a language understood by the arrested person.
“The agreement and the statements of the parents were already with the police, and the petitioner was arrested inside a prison where he was already secured. There was every opportunity to set out the grounds in a few sentences, and it was not done.”
The Court held that the failure to furnish written grounds of arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS, rendering the arrest and subsequent remand vitiated.
The court also addressed the police claim that the petitioner might abscond:
“The averment that the petitioner is likely to abscond because he is “a North Indian” is not appreciated. A person’s place of origin is not a ground for apprehending that he will flee. The petitioner has lived and worked in Chennai for more than two decades. Such an averment ought not to appear in an affidavit sworn by a police officer.”
The Court observed that the lapse was not an isolated one. It impleaded the Tamil Nadu DGP (Law and Order) and directed a report on existing circulars, arrest-memo formats, compliance and police training. It also directed the DGP to instruct police units that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest in accordance with the law would be treated as dereliction of duty and could attract departmental proceedings. The Court clarified that it had made no finding on the investigating officer’s personal culpability.
The Court allowed the petition and granted bail on a ₹50,000 bond with two sureties for the same amount. The petitioner must appear before the investigating officer when required upon at least 48 hours’ written notice, cannot leave India without the Magistrate’s prior permission, and must not contact the complainant or any witnesses. The matter is listed for reporting compliance on November 10, 2026.
Case Title: Ankur Kumar Jain v. State and Another
Case Number: CRL OP No. 27525 of 2026
