Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi gave reassurance to family members of absconding accused, CCB tells Madras High Court

Former School Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi (DMK) had given reassurance to the relatives of the absconding accused Muthukumar, in the over ₹100 crore fraud case, that the latter was safe and he would return at an appropriate time, the Chennai Central Crime Branch (CCB) police has told the Madras High Court.

In a counter statement filed before Justice V. Lakshminarayanan in response to Mr. Poyyamozhi’s anticipatory bail plea, an Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to the CCB said: “The petitioner was approached by A2’s (Muthukumar) relatives regarding his whereabouts and information was conveyed by him about A2 being safe and returning at an appropriate time.”

Vehemently opposing the plea for grant of advance bail to the former Minister, State Public Prosecutor R. John Sathyan, assisted by Additional Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani, said, the whereabouts of the absconding accused could be ascertained by subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation.

In the counter statement, the CCB said, B.T. Arasakumar (A1) and Mr. Muthukumar who were the founder president and treasurer respectively of an unregistered body titled Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association were instrumental in collecting crores of rupees from various private school managements across the State 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.

On the other hand, senior counsel P. Wilson, representing the petitioner, contended the case does not require custodial interrogation at all since the CCB had already raided the premises associated with the former Minister, subjected him to an over eight-hour-long inquiry and collected income tax returns as well as other documents. He said, the petitioner had all along cooperated with the investigation and was willing to cooperate in the future too.

After hearing both sides, the judge deferred his decision on the advance bail plea to October 26, 2026 so that he could peruse the witness statements in the meantime.