The Madras High Court denies anticipatory bail to former Tamil Nadu School Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi in a corruption case over private school recognition. The allegations are untested and the court’s detailed order is awaited.
Chennai: The Madras High Court on Monday, October 26, 2026, dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of DMK leader and former School Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi in a corruption case registered by the Central Crime Branch (CCB) of the Greater Chennai Police, which concerns alleged collections from private schools in the name of recognition and licences [Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi v. The State].
Justice V Lakshminarayanan passed the order in Crl. O.P. No. 30051 of 2026. The detailed order was awaited at the time of writing, so the reasons for the dismissal are not yet available.
How the case reached here
The FIR arises from a complaint by the former General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association. The complaint alleges that the Association’s President, B T Arasukumar, and other office bearers collected membership and subscription fees from private schools on the promise of securing no-objection certificates, licences, recognition and renewals, and did not deliver. The FIR was first registered under Sections 316(5) and 318(4), read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecution later filed an alteration report before a Metropolitan Magistrate, adding Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and naming Mahesh as an accused.
Mahesh then moved the High Court to quash the FIR (Crl. O.P. No. 28363 of 2026). Through Senior Advocate P Wilson, he argued that no record shows he received any illegal gratification or committed an overt act, that some persons used his name to collect money from schools, and that the complaint was lodged after the change of government because of the complainant’s misgivings about the Association’s President.
He also contended that the prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was granted by the Secretary to the Government, whereas as a Minister at the time of the alleged offence only the Governor could grant it, and that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, not the CCB, should have investigated. The State was directed to respond to that petition.
The investigation and the bail plea
According to the submissions made in the quash petition, the investigating agency searched Mahesh’s house and questioned him for nearly eight hours when he appeared for investigation. In its counter-affidavit, the CCB said its investigation found that money was collected from school managements in the name of party funds, that materials indicated Mahesh’s alleged role in demands concerning private schools, and that Governor’s approval was not required to begin proceedings. These are the CCB’s assertions and have not been tested at trial.
Mahesh then sought anticipatory bail. On the first hearing the Court directed the CCB to respond and listed the matter for October 16, and the plea was later heard and orders were reserved before today’s dismissal.
Why the order matters
The dismissal means Mahesh does not have pre-arrest protection in the case, while his separate petition to quash the FIR, which raises the Section 17A approval and investigating-agency questions, is pending. A refusal of anticipatory bail is not a finding of guilt. The allegations are untested, the Court has not ruled on their merits in these proceedings reported so far, and Mahesh is presumed innocent. This report will be updated against the detailed order once it is available.
Case Title: Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi v. The State [Crl. O.P. No. 30051 of 2026]
Bench: Justice V Lakshminarayanan, Madras High Court
Date of Order: October 26, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate P Wilson appeared for Anbil Mahesh in the connected quash petition; appearances in the bail petition were not available