An arrest memo in Tamil, which the accused says he could not read, did not amount to written grounds of arrest, the Madras High Court has held while granting him bail.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: Granting bail to a man arrested in a Coimbatore cheating case, the Madras High Court has held that his arrest and remand were vitiated because the police did not furnish the grounds of arrest in writing, and has directed that any failure to furnish written grounds of arrest be treated as a dereliction of duty by the arresting officer [Ankur Kumar Jain v. State].
Justice N. Ramesh allowed the petition by order dated October 7, 2026. The Director General of Police (Law and Order), Tamil Nadu, was impleaded suo motu for limited purposes.
Bail, and a warning to arresting officers
The Court ordered Jain’s release on a bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of the same amount, subject to conditions. It directed that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest be treated as a dereliction of duty on the part of the arresting officer, so that the officer who commits the lapse answers for it.
The DGP has been called upon to report whether any circular or standing order on furnishing written grounds has been issued at the State level, whether the printed proforma and arrest memo have been withdrawn, whether circulars reached the Peelamedu station before August 11, 2026, and what training has been given to arresting officers. The Registry is to send a copy of the order to the DGP, the Coimbatore City Commissioner of Police and the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Coimbatore. The matter is listed for reporting compliance on November 10, 2026.
Why the arrest could not stand
Justice Ramesh found that the memo listed only the crime number and the penal provision and said nothing about the petitioner’s alleged role. Holding that the grounds were not communicated as Article 22(1) requires, the Court recorded:
“I hold that the petitioner was not furnished the grounds of his arrest as required by Article 22(1).”
“An oral explanation of a memo that itself contains no grounds is not a communication of grounds in writing.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah, the Court noted that where the requirement is not complied with, “the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal”.
The Court also refused to accept the State’s averment that the petitioner was likely to abscond because he is a North Indian:
“A person’s place of origin is not a ground for apprehending that he will flee.”
It added that such an averment “ought not to appear in an affidavit sworn by a police officer”. The Court further noted that this was the first petition in the crime in which it was called upon to decide bail on merits, which answered the State’s objection on changed circumstances.
The Coimbatore case
The petitioner, Ankur Kumar Jain, is the third accused in Crime No. 215/2026 registered at the E2 Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore. According to the prosecution, FIITJEE Limited, along with a Coimbatore school, collected refundable caution deposits of Rs 1 lakh from parents enrolling their children in coaching programmes, and the deposits were not returned. The case, registered in May 2026, is said to involve 262 parents and about Rs 2.62 crore. The allegations are untested and the Court has expressed no view on the merits of the charge.
Jain, described as the company’s Regional Managing Partner for Tamil Nadu, was formally arrested on August 11, 2026, while already lodged in Puzhal Central Prison in another case. He told the Court that he was only handed a printed arrest memo in Tamil, which he could not read. The State said the contents were explained to him in English.
What the order changes for the police
The order turns a constitutional safeguard into an accountability issue for the arresting officer. Courts have often treated non-supply of grounds as a ground for release, but here the High Court goes further by tying the lapse to the officer’s duty and by asking the State’s police chief to account for outdated arrest forms still in use.
It also draws a line on language: an oral explanation of a printed memo that has no grounds, handed to an accused who cannot read the language it is written in, will not count as compliance. The bail grant rests on the defect in arrest, and the allegations in the underlying case remain untested, with the presumption of innocence intact.
Case Title: Ankur Kumar Jain v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, E2 Peelamedu Police Station, and another [Crl.OP No. 27525 of 2026]
Bench: Justice N. Ramesh, Madras High Court
Date of Order: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate A. Ramesh, instructed by Advocate R. Ashwin, for the petitioner; Government Advocate (Criminal Side) M.M.I. Khaleel for the State