The Chennai Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Cases on Friday reserved its order until November 2 on a petition filed by the Chennai Central Crime Branch police seeking five days of custody of former DMK School Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi for interrogation in an alleged ₹400-crore corruption case involving private school approvals, as reported in Hindu Tamil.
Mahesh, who was arrested following a complaint by an association of private schools alleging that crores of rupees were collected as bribes for granting permanent recognition to schools during the previous DMK regime, is currently lodged in Puzhal Central Prison.
The former minister was produced before Special Court Judge L.S. Sathyamurthy on Friday as the police sought permission to take him into custody from October 29 to November 2.
Anbil Mahesh’s Defence Opposes Police Custody
Senior advocate Abudukumar Rajarathinam, appearing for Mahesh, opposed the police custody request and argued that the former minister had already cooperated extensively with the investigation.
The defence submitted that searches were conducted at properties belonging to Mahesh on September 16, followed by an eight-hour interrogation on September 18. It said he had cooperated with the investigation and handed over the documents sought by the police.
The lawyer argued that there was no need for further custodial interrogation, as Mahesh had not withheld any information and was willing to provide any additional documents required by the investigators.
The defence also explained the circumstances surrounding the change in the rules for renewing recognition of private schools. It submitted that a meeting involving the minister and officials had discussed the issue of renewing recognition every three years, which the private schools’ representatives argued could lead to corruption. They had requested that the renewal period be changed to once every 20 years.
According to the defence, Mahesh had directed officials to examine the request, following which multiple departments held consultations and the government issued an order changing the renewal period to 20 years.
The lawyer argued that this administrative decision was now being portrayed as corruption.
Why Are Alleged Bribe-Givers Witnesses While Mahesh Alone Is Accused?
One of the key arguments raised by Mahesh’s defence was that the private school representatives who had sought the change in recognition rules were now witnesses in the corruption case, despite allegedly being the ones who paid the bribes.
The lawyer argued, “Those who sought a change in the rule for renewing recognition are now witnesses in this case. Going by the law, they should have been arrested and should be in prison. According to their own statements, they are the ones who paid the bribes. So, when the decision was taken collectively, why has a case been registered only against Anbil Mahesh? Is there any evidence that Anbil Mahesh demanded or received money?”
The defence questioned why Mahesh alone had been made an accused when the decision to change the recognition renewal period was allegedly taken collectively by the minister and officials. It also questioned whether the police had any evidence showing that Mahesh personally demanded or received money.
Defence Alleges Political Motivation
Rajarathinam further argued that Mahesh was in prison for political reasons and that the investigation should be fair and independent.
He submitted that the former minister had already answered more than 200 questions and provided documents to the investigators. He also argued that Mahesh had not obstructed the searches conducted at his properties and had cooperated with the police throughout.
The lawyer questioned the allegation that Mahesh had used his position to help former MLA Muthukumar evade arrest, stating that Mahesh himself had not attempted to evade the investigation.
Opposing the custodial interrogation request, the defence argued that police custody should not be used as a means to prevent Mahesh from securing bail.
“Conduct the investigation, but do not turn the investigation into harassment. The police custody petition should not be used as a weapon to prevent Anbil Mahesh from getting bail. He will not run away. He has been fully cooperating with the police investigation,” the lawyer submitted.
Mahesh Seeks Home-Cooked Food and Medicines in Prison
The defence also raised concerns about Mahesh’s treatment in prison, claiming that he had lost between two and four kilograms because he was not being provided proper food.
The lawyer said that even the food directed by the court had not been provided and alleged that prison officials kept the lights on while Mahesh was sleeping.
Comparing his treatment with that of 26/11 Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab, the lawyer argued that even Kasab had been provided with all necessary facilities in prison.
The defence also sought permission for Mahesh to receive home-cooked food and medicines, describing these as basic humanitarian requirements. It requested that, if police custody was granted, the court should direct the police to follow the Supreme Court’s guidelines during interrogation.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Usha Rani, told the court that proper medical facilities would be provided to Mahesh in prison. On the request for home-cooked food, she sought time to examine the matter and submit a response.
Mahesh’s lawyers objected to the request for more time, telling the court that the police were even opposing his request to receive food from home.
Advocate Richardson Wilson, appearing for Mahesh, subsequently cited a Supreme Court judgment while making submissions on the request for home-cooked food.
Police Explain Why They Need Five Days of Custody
During the hearing, Judge L.S. Sathyamurthy asked investigating officer Senthil to explain why the police required five days of custodial interrogation.
Senthil told the court that the case was registered following a complaint submitted by one Elango to the Chennai Police Commissioner on June 23.
He said the investigators needed to establish details about the period when former MLA Muthukumar was absconding before surrendering, trace the movement of money allegedly connected to the case, and investigate the assets held by Mahesh and his family members.
The police also sought to investigate alleged benami assets and examine property-related documents belonging to Mahesh’s relatives.
The investigating officer assured the court that the police would comply with all conditions imposed by the court if custody was granted.
After hearing both sides, Judge L.S. Sathyamurthy reserved the order on the Central Crime Branch’s plea seeking five days of police custody of Anbil Mahesh until November 2.
Meanwhile, the police have been directed to file their response by November 2 to Mahesh’s bail petition pending before the Special Court.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
