Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi vs The State Rep. by, The Assistant Commissioner of P

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012508032026}
Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi,
S/o Anbil Poyyamozhi,
nd
S-3, Mystery Sky Apartment, 2 street, Viswas
Nagar, Palpannai, Tharanallur, Tiruchirappalli.
(Former Member of the Legislative Assembly) .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State Rep. By,
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Central Crime Branch-II, EDF-III, Vepery, Chennai. .. Respondent
Prayer : To enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.64
of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel
for Ms.Kalaivani N
For Respondent : Mr.John Sathyan, State Public Prosecutor
Assisted by
Mr.Arun Anbumani,
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
Heard Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel for Ms.N.Kalaivani for the
petitioner and Mr.John Sathyan, learned State Public Prosecutor, assisted by
Mr.Arun Anbumani, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
2. The petitioner seeks an order of this court to enlarge him on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.64 of 2026 on the file of the Central Crime
Branch-II (CCB), Chennai.
Page1 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
3. The petitioner is a Former Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu.
Crime No.64 of 2026 came to be registered under the following circumstances:-
One Mr.D.C.Elangovan alleged that large sums of money had been
collected by Arasa Kumar (A1), Muthukumar (A2) and others. The purpose of
collecting these huge amount of monies was to secure permanent recognition,
upgradation, DTCP /CMDA approval etc, for private schools functioning in this
State. When FIR was initially registered, the petitioner herein was not arrayed
as an accused. The police had registered the crime invoking Sections 316(5),
318(4) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023. During the course of investigation, the
Investigating Officer claimed to have unearthed materials disclosing the
involvement of two other persons, namely, Raju (A3) and Suresh (A4). A1, A3
and A4 have been arrested. A2 is absconding. The investigation further reveals
that the petitioner herein had links with the accused in the aforesaid case.
4. Witnesses have been examined, statements were recorded, and digital,
official and other Government records were collected and investigated. It is the
claim of the prosecution that the petitioner herein had direct interaction with
certain witnesses and had collected amounts from the school management on
the ground that it is for “ party fund ”. It is further alleged that the petitioner
herein had assured that on payment of the “ party fund ”, Government Orders
satisfying the demands of the school management would be issued. Consequent
Page2 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
to this discovery, the police filed an alternation report to add Section 7 and
Section 12 of the Prevention and Corruption (Amendment) Act of 2018.
5. Pursuant to the alteration report filed on 09.09.2026, summons were
served to the petitioner herein on 16.09.2026. The premises belonging to the
petitioner at Tiruchirapalli, his office at T.Nagar and his temporary residence at
Greenways Road in Chennai were searched. The investigating officer called
upon the petitioner to produce certain records. They were also produced.
6. The police summoned the petitioner for examination. The petitioner
states that the police also examined him for over eight hours and had recorded
his answers in a questionnaire. As the petitioner fears he might be arrested, he
has come forward with this application for anticipatory bail.
7. Mr.P.Wilson, appearing for the petitioner, stated as follows:-
(i) The petitioner has consistently co-operated with the
investigation and had appeared before the police on 18.09.2026. He had been
interrogated for over eight hours.
(ii) Three premises have been searched on 16.09.2026 and several
documents have been seized.
(iii) In compliance with the summons regarding production of
records that have been sought, not only the petitioner, but his mother-in-law
Page3 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
also has produced whatever records are available with them. They have also
assured that any further records that is necessary will also be produced in order
to assist the investigation.
(iv) The petitioner is not a flight risk. He has deep roots in the
society. He will always be available for enquiry and that he will not tamper with
the evidence.
(v) Finally, in cases like these, which are borne out on records, no
custodial interrogation is essential.
8. Rejecting these arguments, Mr.John Sathyan, learned State Public
Prosecutor instructed by Mr.Arun Anbumani, Additional Public Prosecutor
stated as follows:
(i) The investigation has so far identified as many as 177 victims
from whom amounts have ben received with the assurance that appropriate
Government permission will be obtained.
(ii) The petitioner was closely associated with A1 and A2. The
investigation has so far revealed that monies had been directly handed over to
the petitioner herein.
(iii) Though the FIR speaks about a couple of crores, the
investigation so far has revealed that a stupendous sum of Rs.400 crores had
been collected.
Page4 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
(iv) The police are taking serious efforts for finding out the money
trail.
(v) The investigation is nascent and developing. Only with the help
of custodial interrogation, the deep and pervasive conspiracy can be ferreted out
and the case be unravelled.
(vi) Investigation has revealed that A2, the absconding accused is
being shielded from the Law Enforcing Agency by the petitioner herein. Hence,
it is the petitioner who is hampering the investigation. It is the intention of the
police to confront the petitioner with A2.
(vii) During the meetings of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools
Association held at Kalaivanar Arangam, the petitioner had made a statement
that whatever be the grievance of the members, if it is channelised through A1
and A2, it will be duly addressed by the Government.
(viii) Finally, the gravity of the offence is of such a nature that the
petitioner should not be granted anticipatory bail and that custodial interrogation
of the petitioner is essential.
9. In response, it is the plea of Mr.P.Wilson that as a Minister, the
petitioner has attended several meetings. The statements made by the Minister
during the course of such meetings cannot be used for the purpose of fixing
responsibility on him. He pointed out that no official of the State of Tamil Nadu
has been arrayed as an accused. Furthermore, the petitioner has nothing to do
Page5 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
with the second accused, even though he was his classmate. The relationship
between the petitioner, A1 and A2 was only on account of the registered body
by name “Parent-Teacher Association”. It is his further grievance that the case
continues to be investigated by the CCB and has not been transferred to the
specialised force, namely, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
(DVAC). He states that the petitioner is willing to comply with any condition
and therefore, seeks anticipatory bail.
10. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side. I
have gone through the records.
11. The facts have been extracted above. Hence, I am not reiterating the
same in this portion of the judgment.
12. I will take the last submission of Mr.P.Wilson first.
13. According to him, the investigation ought to be done only by the
DVAC, as it is the specialised force in matters of corruption. I am not in a
position to agree with the said submission, for a simple reason that there is a
division of work in the police force among its several departments. It is not as if
the DVAC alone possesses the exclusive jurisdiction to investigate matters
relating to corruption. The facts reveal that initially, the complaint arose with
Page6 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
respect to Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association. During the course of
investigation, the involvement of other accused has come out. For the sake that
a Minister is involved, it is not necessary that the CCB should transfer all the
files relating to the alleged crime to the DVAC. As to who should investigate is
a matter which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of police. Unless and until
there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction, this court will not interfere as to who
takes up the matter for investigation.
14. As rightly contended by Mr.P.Wilson, the participation of a politician,
especially, a sitting Minister, in a function cannot be looked with jaundiced
eyes. However, it has to be taken note that it was not a case of mere
participation. The Investigating Agency alleges that certain statements were
made by the petitioner herein, projecting that the demands of the school
managements have to be routed through A1 and A2, for them to be approved.
15. The investigation has further shown that as many as 177 school
managements have been victims of the game played by accused. The counter in
paragraph 9 reveals that steps were taken for permanent recognition on the
directions of the petitioner herein. The reason for the State of Tamil Nadu not
going for permanent recognition for schools is on account of the tragedy which
took place in this State 30 years ago. Nearly 100 children lost their lives due to
the infamous fire accident at ‘Kumbakonam’. It is hence, that the Tamil Nadu
Page7 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
Government had decided to take a policy, which is not to go for permanent
recognition.
16. Primarily for this case, statements that have been recorded by the
Magistrate under Section 183(5) of BNSS reveal that the funds have been
collected under the head " party fund ". The file shows that on 13.01.2026, a
witness had met the petitioner and made a demand as to why the assured
Government Order had not been released, despite the payment of “ party fund ”.
Furthermore, the principal actor in this tale, namely, A2 has been absconding.
The statements of his relatives show that the petitioner has kept A2 under his
care and custody. This, in the view of the court, amounts to not only hampering
the investigation but also shielding a co-accused.
17. The petitioner is not an ordinary person but holds a very high position
in the political party to which he belongs. The political party, too, had been
ruling this State on more than one occasion. The petitioner is highly influential.
He was not only a Member of the Legislative Assembly but enjoyed the
confidence of his party leader to be appointed as a Minister in the cabinet.
18. I should confess I was in the horns of dilemma. Recollecting the
principle in criminal jurisprudence, “ Jail is the rule and bail is the exception ”;
stretching this slightly, should this court hold that “ anticipatory bail is the rule
Page8 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
and jail is the exception ”? This is more so, when the playground of the
petitioner is the State of Tamil Nadu and when he has deep roots in the society.
It is not as if the petitioner kept away from the police authorities. In fact, the
learned Public Prosecutor concedes that the petitioner had appeared and 240
questions had been answered by him. At this juncture, would granting
anticipatory bail in a matter relating to Prevention of Corruption Act be in the
fitness of things or would it be a case of mechanical application of the aforesaid
principle? Given these facts in favor of the petitioner, are they sufficient for
grant of anticipatory bail? Hence, I decided to refer to the case laws as a
guidance.
19. The earliest case that I was able to place my hands on is the judgment
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of
Punjab, 1978 CRLJ 20 . Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia has served as a Minister for
Irrigation and Power in Punjab. After the Government which he represented lost
power, allegations of corruption and embezzlement were levelled against him.
20. Anticipating arrest, Mr.Sibbia moved the Punjab and Haryana High
Court invoking the newly minted Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Considering the
importance of questions raised, the learned Single Judge referred the matter for
a decision by a Special Bench of that Court. The Special Bench took the
following views:-
Page9 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
(i) The burden of proof was on the accused to make out a special case and
provide prima facie materials that the prosecution was malafide;
(ii) Primacy should be granted to the power of police for custodial
interrogation. Public interest and the right of the police to conduct such
interrogation outweigh the interest of the individual regarding arrest, especially
in corruption cases.
(iii) It rejected the plea that high social standing and deep roots in the
community as grounds for grant of anticipatory bail. The fact that the politicians
are not flight risk is not a ground for grant of anticipatory bail. On the contra,
holding a high office, in itself, is a ground for rejection of anticipatory bail,
when corruption is alleged.
(iv) Finally, a Court cannot grant blanket orders shielding the petitioner
against the offences which have not been registered and specified.
21. Aggrieved by this Order, a bunch of appeals went to the Supreme
Court. This was in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia And Others v. State Of
Punjab, AIR 1980 SCC 1632 . Considering the importance of the question, the
matter was heard by the Constitution Bench headed by Y.V.Chandrachud.CJ.
Analysing the law on the point, the Supreme Court held that when the
Parliament had worded Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the widest possible terms, the
rigid condition laid down by the High Court is inconsistent with the power of
Page10 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
judicial discretion. No court has the power to re-write the law by adding
conditionalities which the Parliament itself did not incorporate.
22. The Bench added that the statutory right of anticipatory bail is linked
to Article 21 of the Constitution and that a provision safeguarding personal
freedom must be incorporated liberally. An attempt to whittle down the
provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C undermines the constitutional guarantee of
personal liberty and the base line of criminal jurisprudence, namely, the
presumption of innocence. It pointed out that the conditions for anticipatory bail
and regular bail are distinct and that grant of anticipatory bail should neither be
extraordinary nor fall under the category of rare cases. In addition, an
individual’s status or political position should, by itself, not be weaponised
against the said person.
23. The Court declared while granting anticipatory bail, a Court should
balance the two competing interests namely, freedom of individuals and the
investigative powers of the police. In appropriate cases, the courts can balance
both by imposing conditions and this option should be chosen rather than
denying pre-arrest protection totally. If this had been the position, Mr.P.Wilson
would not have much difficulty. However, there has been a slow and steady
shift with respect to the grant of anticipatory bail in cases where corruption is
alleged. A few of those judgments will be referred to immediately.
Page11 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
24. The first one being, CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 . A crime
was registered invoking the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act against
one, Anil Sharma. He was accused of having amassed disproportionate assets.
Anil Sharma was not an ordinary individual. He was a son of the former
Minister for Telecommunications in the Union of India, Mr.Sukhram. He
applied for anticipatory bail. It was favourably considered by the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh.
25. The Prosecuting Agency filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. A
Bench consisting of M.K.Mukherjee and K.T.Thomas JJ., allowed the appeal
and set aside the order granting anticipatory bail. The Bench observed that if the
anticipatory bail is granted and thereafter the accused appears before the law
enforcing agencies, interrogation would become a mere ritual. This is because, a
protective shield is thrown around him by the order granting anticipatory bail.
Furthermore, higher the office occupied by the accused, more the handicaps that
the investigating officers would have to face. The Bench pointed out that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning
an accused, who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of
the Code. This view taken by the Bench has been consistently followed by the
Supreme Court in the following cases:-
(i) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu, (1997) 8 SCC 104 ,
(ii) P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 ,
Page12 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
(iii) CBI v. Santhosh Karnani and another, 2023 SCC Online SC 427.
In fact, while allowing the appeal filed by the CBI, Karnani’s case relied on
another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 .
26. Apart from Anil Sharma ’s case, I will refer to the judgment in
P.Chidambaram v. Enforcement Directorate, (2019) 9 SCC 24 .
Mr.Chidambaram was a former Union Home and Finance Minister. It was
alleged that payment of millions of rupees had been channelised by one INX
Media for obtaining approvals from Foreign Investment Promotion Board.
During the said time, Mr.P.Chidambaram was an Union Finance Minister.
Anticipating arrest, Mr.P.Chidambaram moved the Delhi High Court and sought
anticipatory bail. The High Court dismissed the said application against which
an appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court.
27. Dealing with the law relating to anticipatory bail in corruption cases,
after citing Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia ’s case, Banumathi.J held that economic
offences are “ class apart ” as they deeply affect this country’s financial health.
The court pointed out that granting anticipatory bail in financial crimes would
scuttle and hamper an effective investigation. Therefore, the courts must be
exceptionally cautious and slow in such matters before throwing the protective
cloak of anticipatory bail around the accused. It further held that the custodial
Page13 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
interrogation is qualitatively different and more effective than a regular
questioning of an accused who has been benefitted with an order of anticipatory
bail.
28. It further held that granting anticipatory bail while investigation is in
its nascent would result in defeating the investigation and that if an accused is
granted anticipatory bail, it would enable the accused to suppress the intricate
and multi-layered money trails involved in the financial conspiracies. Therefore,
it pointed out that the accused, who cannot be arrested as he is protected by an
order of anticipatory bail, disables the investigative agency of its statutory
power to extract truth from the accused. The fact that the accused was not co-
operative and giving evasive answers could be a ground to refuse anticipatory
bail.
29. I will also refer to a very recent judgment rendered by J.B.Pardiwala
and R.Mahadevan, JJ. in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of
Punjab, (2025) 4 SCC 493 . It was a case where the Supreme court was handling
a situation very similar to the present one, namely, an allegation that the public
servants were using intermediaries to collect bribes. Devinder Kumar Bansal
was a public servant, who was employed as an audit inspector with the
Government of Punjab. It was alleged that he had demanded bribe to clear the
objections that had been raised in an audit report and issue a favourable one
Page14 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
with respect to certain works that had been executed by the defacto
complainant’s wife, who was then, a mere village Sarpanch.
30. It was alleged that the co-accused, one Prithvi Singh had acted as a
middleman for Devinder Kumar Bansal. He was apprehended by the Vigilance
Bureau while accepting bribe on behalf of Bansal. The prosecution was also
able to lay their hands on an audio recording in which Bansal had enquired
whether bribe had been received and he had given instructions to transfer it.
Bansal applied for anticipatory bail. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana
refused to grant anticipatory bail. Aggrieved by the same, Bansal preferred an
appeal to the Supreme Court.
31. Pardiwala.J held that in cases of corruption, anticipatory bail is not a
matter of right. He reminded that courts must restrict such reliefs in cases of
corruption. He stated that while the courts are not totally barred from granting
anticipatory bail, power must be exercised in exceptional circumstances in cases
which clearly reveal
(a)political vendetta,
(b)false implications or
(c)manifest frivolity.
None of the exceptions pointed out by Pardiwala.J applies to the facts of
the present case.
Page15 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
32. Rejecting the plea, which was more or less on the same lines as stated
by Mr.P.Wilson, that appearance before the police authorities entitles the
accused for anticipatory bail, Pardiwala.J pointed out that the custodial
interrogation is a more potent and qualitatively effective tool. It is essential to
unearth the complex corruption chains, trace the money trails and unearth
hidden networks of intermediaries.
33. Analysis of the law on the point shows that there has been a tectonic
jurisprudential shift in the law relating to anticipatory bail in matters relating to
corruption. While the power to grant anticipatory bail is wide and expansive, the
scope of discretion to grant it has reduced when applications are filed in matters
relating to corruption or socio-economic offences. A careful analysis of the
aforesaid judgments shows that such cases are to be treated as a “ class apart ”,
as held in P.Chidambaram’s case. While the pro-liberty view taken in Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia ’s case is to be applied in general, when an influential person like a
politician is involved, the principles laid down in Anil Sharma ’s case and
reiterated by the Supreme Court over a period of two decades and a half comes
into operation. It is because public interest demands unearthing a deep
conspiracy when pitted against individual liberty.
34. It is not as if the police had been informed about the involvement of
the petitioner at the initial stage itself. It was during the course of investigation
Page16 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
that they stumbled across materials, which revealed to them the alleged
involvement of the accused. Such kind of cases will require the police to check
multiple accounts and money trails. Therefore, in cases of multi-layered
corruption, involving manipulation of records, which has several players
involved in a conspiracy, granting anticipatory bail will thwart the course of
investigation.
35. When a strong apprehension arises that the petitioner will use the
liberty to influence witnesses, hamper investigation or destroy physical
evidences, it operates as general exception for the rule set forth above. Prima
facie, the records reveal that the absconding accused - A2 has been shielded by
the petitioner.
36. This court, while dealing with an application for anticipatory bail,
would have to keep in mind that corruption is a grave economic offence. It not
only affects the public exchequer but is also a crime against humanity and
directly affects the human rights. In cases such as these, the court has to keep in
mind the position that had been occupied by the petitioner and thereby, his
ability to tamper with the State machineries or influence witnesses. I should
hasten to add that the consideration for anticipatory bail is fundamentally
different from grant of bail in such cases.
Page17 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
37. This court is alive to the fact that even in cases where the accused is
alleged to have committed corruption of very high levels or is an accused in
money laundering cases, if the accused is facing prolonged pre-trial
incarceration without or much progress, it is the constitutional duty of the court
to grant bail invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India. These aspects will
arise while a Court considers a plea for bail and not anticipatory bail.
38. The plea of Mr.P.Wilson that all the evidences are documentary in
nature and therefore, custody is unnecessary had also been considered by the
courts and rejected. Money trails would still require custodial interrogation in
order to establish the intent and identify who had been holding the strings and
the final destination of the amount alleged to be involved.
39. This court is of the view that if anticipatory bail is granted in this
case, it would paralyse the investigation. While protection of individual liberty
is a duty of the court, it should be weighed against the society’s need for a
corruption free governmental administration. The records show that 177 victims
have so far come forward to record their statements. The petitioner is a
politician, holding a high position. If anticipatory bail is granted before the
second accused is apprehended, then it would become a tool for the second
accused to avoid the process of the investigation.
Page18 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
40. Furthermore, I should refer to the order passed by this court in the
application for anticipatory bail filed by Muthukumar-(A2). Brother Justice
G.K.Ilanthiraiyan had specifically held that the allegations are of such a nature
that it requires custodial interrogation. I have no reason to take a different view
in this case, more so, when the petitioner has held a high position in the State
Administration. The gravity of the offence is an essential condition which the
court has to consider. Higher the gravity, more the difficulty for a person get
anticipatory bail.
41. The fact that the petitioner herein had co-operated with the
interrogation so far is no ground to grant anticipatory bail as he faces accusation
of having received monies under the name and style ‘ party fund ’. As to who is
the final destination of this alleged “ party fund ” cannot be unearthed unless and
until the petitioner is interrogated. As the investigation is still at its nascent
stage and as new facts are being unearthed, this court is of the view that grant of
anticipatory bail would not be fit and proper.
42 In the light of the above discussions, the petition stands dismissed.
26.10.2026
nl / krk
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Page19 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )

CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.
nl / krk
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Central Crime Branch-II, EDF-III,
Vepery, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
CRL OP No. 30051 of 2026
26.10.2026
Page20 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 06:22:46 pm )