Madras High Court denies anticipatory bail to Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi in ‘party fund’ collection case

The Madras High Court on Monday (October 26, 2026) denied anticipatory bail to former DMK Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi in a case booked against him on charges of having collected crores of rupees towards ‘party fund’ from various private school managements in the State for grant of various approvals during his stint as Tamil Nadu School Education Minister between 2021 and 2026.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan dismissed the advance bail plea after being convinced with the arguments advanced by State Public Prosecutor R. John Sathyan, assisted by Additional Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani, that the Chennai Central Crime Branch (CCB) police had collected enough materials to suspect the active involvement of the former Minister in the crime requiring his custodial interrogation.

In a counter statement filed for objecting the grant of advance bail to the former Minister, arrayed as the fifth accused in the First Information Report (FIR), an Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to the CCB told the court that the investigating team had so far arrested only the first accused B.T. Arasakumar and that the second accused Muthukumar was still at large and remains absconding.

The investigating officer said, the former Minister had given reassurance to the relatives of the absconding accused that the latter was safe and he would return at an appropriate time. Referring to the counter statement, the SPP had told the court that the whereabouts of the absconding accused could be ascertained only if the former Minister was arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation.

₹100-crore private schools fraud

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.