Chennai: The Madras High Court has granted regular bail to Ankur Kumar Jain, the Regional Managing Partner for Tamil Nadu of FIITJEE Limited, arrested in a case of cheating over refundable caution deposits collected from parents, holding that he was not furnished the grounds of his arrest in writing in a language he understands, as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of the Sanhita, so that his arrest and remand were vitiated. The court also impleaded the Director General of Police (Law and Order), Tamil Nadu, suo motu, and directed him to report on compliance with the law on written grounds of arrest.
Justice N. Ramesh passed the order on 07-10-2026 in CRL OP No. 27525 of 2026, a petition for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by Ankur Kumar Jain, the third accused in Crime No. 215 of 2026, registered on 27.05.2026 by the E2 Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore City, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the order, FIITJEE Limited, in arrangement with Suguna PIP School, Coimbatore, conducted integrated coaching for JEE and NEET aspirants, and each parent paid a refundable caution deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 on the assurance that it would be returned within sixty days of the completion of the course. The de facto complainant's deposit was not returned, and the case was registered against two other persons, and the petitioner is not named in the complaint or the FIR. The police case, as stated in the counter affidavit, is that he signed an agreement dated 26.02.2011 on behalf of FIITJEE Limited and, along with the first and second accused, caused loss of Rs. 2.62 crores to 262 parents. The first accused is stated to be absconding and the second has anticipatory bail.
The petitioner was arrested on 15.07.2026 in Crime No. 5 of 2026 by the Economic Offences Wing, Chennai, and lodged in Puzhal prison, where his formal arrest in the present crime was recorded on 11.08.2026. He was enlarged on bail in Crime No. 5 of 2026 on 07.09.2026 in Crl.O.P. No. 22765 of 2026. His earlier bail petitions were dismissed, including one filed directly in the High Court, Crl.O.P. No. 25372 of 2026, which was dismissed as not entertainable at the first instance with liberty to approach the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, and the court held that the objection of no change of circumstances therefore did not arise.
His senior counsel submitted that he is a salaried employee of FIITJEE Limited since 2000 and not a director or shareholder, that the deposits were paid by cheque into the company's account and none reached him, that the company's accounts were frozen in 2025, that he could not comply with the notices under Section 35(3) as he was in prison, that no grounds of arrest were furnished and the only document was a printed arrest memo in Tamil, which he cannot read, and that he is a right above-knee amputee with eighty per cent permanent disability whose prosthesis was damaged in prison. The police, in their counter affidavit, said that 262 parents were cheated of more than Rs. 2.62 crores, that the memo's contents were explained to him in English, that the investigation is at a budding stage and that he, being a North Indian, is likely to abscond.
Relying on Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, the court reiterated that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing, in a language the arrestee understands, for all offences under all statutes, and that non-compliance renders the arrest and remand illegal. It found that the only document served was an arrest memo whose column for the particulars of the offence and reasons for arrest merely cross-referred to the crime number and Section 420 IPC, and that an oral explanation of a memo containing no grounds is not communication of grounds in writing. It noted that this was not an arrest in flagrante delicto, as the petitioner was arrested inside a prison where he was already secured.
The court rejected the police contention that the arrest, made on 11.08.2026, preceded the court's order of 07.09.2026 in Crl.O.P. No. 22765 of 2026, observing that the obligation arises from the Constitution and the statute and was declared in Mihir Rajesh Shah about nine months before the arrest. It also held that the complaint of non-appearance under Section 35(3) had no foundation, since he had been in prison from 15.07.2026, and that the averment that he was likely to abscond because he is a North Indian was not appreciated, as a person's place of origin is not a ground for apprehending that he will flee and such an averment ought not to appear in an affidavit sworn by a police officer.
Observing that this was not an isolated lapse, the court noted that the printed arrest memo used refers to the provisions of the repealed Code and carries a single column for both the particulars of the offence and the reasons for arrest, though on 07.09.2026 it had directed the Director General of Police to withdraw the printed proforma, replace it with a form requiring narrative grounds, issue instructions and report compliance within eight weeks. It said that accused persons in serious cases are being released because the police did not do what the law requires at the moment of arrest, and that it is the victims, here 262 parents, who suffer.
The court suo motu impleaded the Director General of Police (Law and Order), Tamil Nadu, as second respondent, and directed him to report by the next date on whether any circular or standing order was issued after the decisions cited, whether the printed proforma and the arrest memo used were withdrawn and replaced and from what date, whether any such circular had reached the E2 Peelamedu Police Station before 11.08.2026 and why it was not followed, with the arresting officer's explanation, and the training and sensitisation given to arresting officers. He must also instruct every unit of the police that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest shall be treated as a dereliction of duty rendering the officer liable to departmental proceedings, in conformity with the Supreme Court's decision in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol. The court clarified that this is not a finding on the personal culpability of the investigating officer, who is entitled to be heard in any proceeding that may follow.
The petition was allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Coimbatore, subject to conditions including appearing before the investigating officer on not less than forty-eight hours' written notice, not leaving India without permission, not contacting the complainant, parents or other witnesses, and not absconding or tampering with evidence, with liberty to the Magistrate to accept sureties residing in Chennai. The court stated that its observations are confined to the bail petition and are not an opinion on the merits of the accusation, the petitioner's role or the effect of the freezing of the accounts.
The matter was listed for reporting compliance on 10.11.2026, along with Crl.O.P. No. 22765 of 2026.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Ramesh, Senior Counsel, for Mr. R. Ashwin, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.M.I. Khaleel, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
Case Title: Ankur Kumar Jain vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, E2 Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore, and Another, CRL OP No. 27525 of 2026
