Madras High Court denies anticipatory bail to Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi in ₹100 crore private school scam case

Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi. File | Photo credit: R. Ashok

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 collecting crores of rupees into a “party fund” from various private school managements in the state for granting various approvals during his tenure20 School of Education among Minister20 in Nadu20 Tamil.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan rejected the anticipatory bail application after he was satisfied, based on the arguments presented by public prosecutor R. John Sathyan, assisted by additional public prosecutor Arun Anbumani, that the Chennai Central Crime Branch (CCB) police had collected enough material to suspect the former minister’s active involvement in the crime requiring his custodial interrogation.

In a counter affidavit filed challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to the former minister, who is listed as the fifth accused in the First Information Report (FIR), the Deputy Commissioner of Police attached to the CCB court said the investigation team has so far arrested only the first accused BT Arasakumar and that the second accused Muthukumar is still at large and remains absconding.

The investigating officer said the former minister had assured the relatives of the accused that the fugitive was safe and would return at an appropriate time. Referring to the counter-statement of the court, the SPP said that the whereabouts of the fugitive accused could only be ascertained if the former minister was arrested and detained.

Case background

According to the CCB, the first and second accused were the founder president and treasurer of an unregistered body called “Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association”. They have been instrumental in collecting crores of rupees from various private school managements for purposes such as obtaining permanent recognition, upgrading, DTCP/CMDA approvals, building permits and other government approvals.

The investigating agency alleged that the unregistered association was formed in 2024 based on a communication by the former minister through his personal assistant Valadi Karthick. Mr. Poyyamozhi attended an event held to inaugurate the association at Kalaivanar Arangam in Chennai on 30 December 2024. CCB claimed to have secured a video recording of the event, the then minister “screening” Mr. Arasakumar and Mr. Muthukumar in front of a large gathering of school correspondents.

After that, all the needs of the individual school leaders were channeled through the first two accused for being placed in front of a 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 are still under investigation,” the CCB told the court.

Denying the petitioner’s claim that it was mere name-dropping, the investigating agency said: “The petitioner, by virtue of his position as Minister of Education, lent his office and access and was the link at the government level through which the same categories of requests were handled and processed. During the course of the investigation, materials emerged which revealed that the collected money was passed on to the Minister.”

The CCB also said it listed Mr. Poyyamozhi as the fifth accused in the case only after it came across materials related to collection of bribes referred to as “party fund” and direct contacts of the victims with the petitioner on various occasions. It is said that many more illegalities could be revealed only after the arrest of the second accused.

“The scope of the conspiracy, the seriousness of the charges, the organized manner in which the offenses were committed, the ongoing investigation into the money trail, the strength of the evidence so far collected, the real possibility of witness intimidation, obstruction and manipulation, etc., clearly entitle the petitioner to seek relief from anticipatory bail,” reads the petitioner’s appeal.

Published – 26 Oct 2026 12:52 IST