The Madras High Court on Monday (October 26, 2026) denied anticipatory bail to former School Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi of the DMK in a corruption case after observing that the final destination of over ₹400 crore, allegedly collected towards a ‘party fund’ from over 177 private school managements in the State, could be found out only if he is subjected to custodial interrogation.
Justice V. Lakshminarayanan said he was of the view that grant of advance bail to the former Minister would paralyse the investigation being conducted by the Central Crime Branch for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
“While protection of individual liberty is a duty of the court, it should be weighed against the society’s need for a corruption-free governmental administration,” he said. Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that all evidence in the case was documentary in nature, and hence, his arrest was not absolutely necessary in such a case, the judge said: “Money trails would still require custodial interrogation in order to establish the intent and identify who had been holding the strings and the final destination of the amount alleged to be involved.”
Further, the judge recorded the submission of State Public Prosecutor R. John Sathyan that the second accused Muthukumar, who was a classmate of the former Minister and also the treasurer of a private schools association through which the ‘party fund’ was collected, was still absconding and his whereabouts could be found out only by interrogating the present petitioner. “The petitioner is a politician, holding a high position. If anticipatory bail is granted before the second accused is apprehended, then it would become a tool for the second accused to avoid the process of the investigation. 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,” Justice Lakshminarayanan said.
He went on to state that corruption was a grave economic offence. “It not only affects the public exchequer but is also a crime against humanity and directly affects the human rights. In cases such as these, the court has to keep in mind the position that had been occupied by the petitioner and thereby his ability to tamper with the State machineries or influence witnesses.”
He also said courts would generally be slow in granting anticipatory bail in corruption cases, especially when a strong apprehension arose that the petitioner could use the liberty to influence witnesses, hamper investigation, or destroy physical evidence. “In the present case, prima facie, the records reveal that the absconding accused — A2 has been shielded by the petitioner,” he wrote.
The judge said Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan of the Supreme Court had in 2025 held that in corruption cases, anticipatory bail could not be sought as a matter of right, and it could be granted only in cases involving political vendetta, false implications, or manifest frivolity. “None of the exceptions pointed out by Pardiwala J. applies to the facts of the present case,” he concluded.
Case background
According to the CCB, the first and second accused were the founder president and treasurer respectively of an unregistered body titled ‘Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association’. They were instrumental in collecting crores of rupees from various private school managements for purposes such as gaining permanent recognition, upgradation, DTCP/CMDA approvals, building related permissions and other government approvals.
The investigating agency claimed the unregistered association was formed in 2024 on the basis of the former Minister’s communication through his personal assistant Valadi Karthick. Mr. Poyyamozhi had participated in the event held for inaugurating the association at Kalaivanar Arangam in Chennai on December 30, 2024. Claiming that it had secured the video footage of the event, the CCB said, the then Minister had “projected” Mr. Arasakumar and Mr. Muthukumar before a large gathering of school correspondents.
Thereafter, all the needs of individual school managements were routed through the first two accused for being placed before the higher government level. So far, “more than 177 victim school managements have come forward and a prima facie amount of ₹17,26,73,650 has been traced. The complete financial trail and ultimate beneficiaries is still under investigation,” the CCB told the court.
Denying the petitioner’s claim that it was a case of mere name dropping, the investigating agency said: “The petitioner, by virtue of his position as School Education Minister, lent his office and access and he was the link at the government level through whom the same category of demands were taken up and processed. Materials have surfaced during the investigation disclosing that monies collected were handed over to the Minister.”
The CCB also stated it arrayed Mr. Poyyamozhi as the fifth accused in the case only after coming across materials regarding collection of bribe money termed as ‘party fund’ and the direct interactions the victims had with the petitioner on different occasions. It said, much more of the illegalities could be unearthed only after securing the second accused.
“The magnitude of the conspiracy, the gravity of the accusations, the organised manner in which the offences were committed, the continuing investigation into the money trail, the strength of the evidence collected so far, the real possibility of witness intimidation, hampering and tampering, etc., clearly disentitle the petitioner from seeking the relief of anticipatory bail. The petitioner’s plea deserves to be dismissed,” the counter read.
