Does a co-accused’s surrender change the case for keeping a former minister in custody? The Madras High Court has not ruled on that, but it has given the State till November 17 to answer the Anbil Mahesh Bail Plea, after the former Tamil Nadu School Education Minister, in custody since October 26, sought release in the alleged Rs 100 crore private schools registration corruption case.
Chennai: On Thursday, November 12, 2026, the Madras High Court issued notice to the State on the bail petition of former Tamil Nadu School Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi and directed it to file its counter by November 17, in a case over an alleged Rs 100 crore scam in the registration of private schools [Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi v. The State].
Justice V Lakshminarayanan adjourned the hearing at the request of State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan, assisted by Additional Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani. The Court has not ruled on the merits of the bail plea.
What Mahesh’s counsel told the Court
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul submitted that Mahesh had been in custody since October 26 and that the prime accused in the case had been arrested and in custody since October 20.
Senior Advocate P Wilson, also appearing for Mahesh, submitted that the second accused, Muthukumar, had surrendered before the court after anticipatory bail was refused. With that surrender, he argued, the concern the High Court had flagged while denying anticipatory bail no longer survived, and Mahesh should be released on bail.
Why the State wanted more time
The prosecution told the Court that the remand petition of the second accused was being heard by the Special Court the same day and that a detailed counter, bringing all the facts on record, had to be filed. Accepting the request, the Court issued notice and listed the matter after the State’s counter, due by November 17.
The road to the High Court
Mahesh, who held the school education portfolio in the previous DMK government, was arrested on October 26, 2026, shortly after the High Court dismissed his anticipatory bail plea. When his petition to quash the FIR was later taken up, his counsel objected to the manner of his arrest from an advocate’s office.
On November 10, the Special Court dismissed his bail plea, observing that the material on record showed his prima facie involvement. The trial court said that as Minister he was responsible for the education and welfare of students, teachers, parents and other stakeholders, and that public interest outweighed his claim to bail at the initial stage of investigation, given the need for custodial interrogation of co-accused and that other accused were yet to be secured.
The allegations against Mahesh and the co-accused are untested and are yet to be proved at trial. The High Court has expressed no view on the merits, and the accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Why the hearing matters
The plea tests how a change in circumstances, here the surrender of a co-accused and the period already spent in custody, weighs against the grounds on which bail was earlier refused. Courts often revisit custody where the original concern of evasion or non-cooperation by co-accused has been met.
The State, on the other hand, relies on the early stage of investigation and the Special Court’s finding of prima facie involvement. The High Court’s decision after November 17 will set the course for a closely watched corruption prosecution of a former Cabinet Minister.
Case Title: Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi v. The State [Crl.O.P. No. 33116 of 2026]
Bench: Justice V Lakshminarayanan, Madras High Court
Date of Hearing: November 12, 2026 (notice issued; counter by November 17)
For the Petitioner: Neeraj Kishan Kaul and P Wilson, Senior Advocates
For the State: John Sathyan, State Public Prosecutor, assisted by Arun Anbumani, Additional Public Prosecutor
