High Court rejects anticipatory bail plea, DMK’s Anbil Mahesh arrested in multi-crore ‘fraud’ case

Former Tamil Nadu School Education Minister and senior DMK leader Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi was arrested in Chennai on Monday, hours after the Madras High Court rejected his anticipatory bail petition in an alleged multi-crore fraud involving money collected from private schools in exchange for government approvals.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan dismissed the petition after the Chennai Central Crime Branch (CCB) argued that investigators had gathered sufficient material suggesting the former minister’s active involvement and that custodial interrogation was necessary.

In a 20-page order, Justice Lakshminarayanan observed that granting anticipatory bail at this stage would “paralyse the investigation”, particularly when investigators were still tracing the money and searching for an absconding accused.

The court said the need to protect individual liberty had to be weighed against society's interest in a corruption-free administration. Poyyamozhi, a close childhood friend of former Deputy Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin, and a prominent figure in the DMK’s younger leadership, has been named as the fifth accused in the case.

The case originates from a complaint filed by C Elangovan, secretary of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Federation. According to the CCB, an unregistered association headed by B T Arasakumar allegedly collected money from private-school managements by promising permanent recognition, school upgrades and building approvals during Poyyamozhi’s tenure between 2021 and 2026.

The FIR was initially registered under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS, relating to criminal breach of trust, cheating and common intention. Following the emergence of evidence allegedly linking Poyyamozhi to the collections, investigators filed an alteration report on September 9, adding Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, concerning bribery involving public servants and abetment.

Investigators told the court that more than 177 school managements had come forward and that transactions totalling Rs 17.26 crore had allegedly been traced so far. State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan told the High Court that the investigation had indicated collections amounting to Rs 400 crore.

The prosecution said investigators were still attempting to establish the money trail, making custodial interrogation necessary to identify those involved and the ultimate recipients. The police alleged that Poyyamozhi helped establish the association in 2024 through his personal assistant, Valadi Karthick, and publicly introduced its organisers at a Chennai event in December that year.

The prosecution told the court that during meetings of the private schools association, Poyyamozhi had indicated that grievances of school managements routed through Arasakumar and Muthukumar would be addressed by the government.

The judge observed that while a minister's participation in a public function could not itself be treated with suspicion, the allegations went beyond mere attendance and concerned specific assurances about routing demands through the accused.

Investigators also said that money collected from schools was allegedly handed over to Poyyamozhi under the description of “party fund”. The court referred to witness statements recorded before a magistrate under Section 183(5) of the BNSS, which indicated that collections had been described as “party fund”.

It also cited records showing that a witness met Poyyamozhi on January 13, 2026, and questioned why a promised government order had not been issued despite payment of money. The prosecution also alleged that Poyyamozhi had reassured relatives of an absconding accused, Muthukumar, about his safety, strengthening its argument for custodial questioning.

Police said efforts were continuing to trace Muthukumar, described as a close associate of the former minister. The High Court recorded that statements from Muthukumar's relatives indicated that Poyyamozhi had kept the absconding accused under his custody.

Justice Lakshminarayanan observed that this amounted, prima facie, to shielding a co-accused and obstructing the investigation. The judge also noted that another High Court judge had previously refused anticipatory bail to Muthukumar, citing the need for custodial interrogation.

Poyyamozhi's counsel, senior advocate P Wilson, argued that the former minister had cooperated throughout the investigation, appeared for questioning on September 18 and answered 240 questions during more than eight hours of interrogation.

He submitted that documents sought by investigators had been furnished, including records produced by Poyyamozhi's mother-in-law, and that the former minister was neither a flight risk nor likely to tamper with evidence.

Wilson also argued that Poyyamozhi's association with the accused arose through the Parent-Teacher Association, that Muthukumar had merely been his classmate, and that attending public functions as a minister could not establish criminal responsibility.

He questioned why the case remained with the CCB rather than being transferred to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC). Rejecting the jurisdictional objection, the court held that the DVAC did not have exclusive authority to investigate corruption offences.

It acknowledged Poyyamozhi's cooperation but said it did not eliminate the need for custodial questioning. Referring to previous Supreme Court judgments in other corruption cases, Justice Lakshminarayanan said economic offences required particular caution in granting anticipatory bail.

He also considered the possibility of political vendetta or false implication but held that the recognised exceptional circumstances for granting protection in such corruption cases were not established. The court said Poyyamozhi's influential political position, coupled with the material suggesting that he had shielded a co-accused, raised concerns about interference with witnesses and the...