The Madras High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused in a Coimbatore cheating case involving the non-refund of student caution deposits, holding that the police failed to furnish written grounds for his arrest. Justice N. Ramesh also criticised the police for claiming that the petitioner might abscond because he was “a North Indian”, as reported in Court Book.
The court held that the failure to provide written grounds of arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), rendering the arrest and subsequent remand vitiated.
Background Of The Case
FIITJEE Limited had conducted JEE and NEET coaching programmes in association with Suguna PIP School in Coimbatore. Parents of students had each paid a refundable caution deposit of ₹1 lakh.
The complainant, Vikram D.G., alleged that he did not receive his deposit back after the course ended. Following this, Peelamedu police registered a cheating case in May 2026.
The police subsequently named the petitioner as the third accused, alleging that he had signed a 2011 agreement with the school on behalf of FIITJEE Limited. The police alleged that the petitioner and the other two accused were responsible for losses amounting to ₹2.62 crore suffered by 262 parents.
The petitioner maintained that he was a salaried employee and that the company’s frozen bank accounts had prevented the refunds from being processed.
He was already lodged in Puzhal Central Prison in connection with a separate case in Chennai when the Coimbatore police formally arrested him in the present case on 11 August 2026.
Court Finds Written Grounds Of Arrest Were Not Furnished
The petitioner contended that the only document served on him was a printed arrest memo in Tamil, a language he said he could not read.
The column in the memo intended to specify the particulars of the offence and the reasons for arrest contained only the entry ‘for the offence shown in column 3’. The third column referred to the crime number and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), without setting out the specific allegations against him.
The police contended that the contents of the arrest memo had been explained to the petitioner orally in English.
The High Court relied on Supreme Court rulings, including Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which require the written grounds of arrest to be furnished in a language understood by the arrested person.
The court observed that the agreement and the parents’ statements were already available with the police and that the petitioner had been arrested inside a prison where he was already in custody.
“The agreement and the statements of the parents were already with the police, and the petitioner was arrested inside a prison where he was already secured. There was every opportunity to set out the grounds in a few sentences, and it was not done.”
The court held that the failure to furnish written grounds of arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS, thereby vitiating the arrest and subsequent remand.
Court Criticises Police For Citing Petitioner’s North Indian Origin
The High Court also took exception to the police contention that the petitioner was likely to abscond because he was from North India.
“The averment that the petitioner is likely to abscond because he is “a North Indian” is not appreciated. A person’s place of origin is not a ground for apprehending that he will flee. The petitioner has lived and worked in Chennai for more than two decades. Such an averment ought not to appear in an affidavit sworn by a police officer.”
The court made it clear that a person’s place of origin could not, by itself, be treated as a ground for apprehending that the person would flee.
DGP Directed To Report On Arrest Procedures
The High Court observed that the failure to furnish written grounds of arrest was not an isolated lapse. It impleaded the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police (Law and Order) and directed the DGP to submit a report on existing circulars, arrest-memo formats, compliance with legal requirements and police training.
The court also directed the DGP to instruct police units that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest in accordance with the law would be treated as dereliction of duty and could attract departmental proceedings.
However, the court clarified that it had made no finding on the personal culpability of the investigating officer.
Bail Granted With Conditions
Allowing the petition, the High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner on a bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties for the same amount.
The petitioner was directed to appear before the investigating officer whenever required, provided he received at least 48 hours’ written notice. He was also prohibited from leaving India without the prior permission of the Magistrate and from contacting the complainant or any witnesses.
The matter has been listed for reporting compliance on 10 November 2026.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
