The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police (DGP) to issue instructions making police officers liable for departmental proceedings if they fail to furnish written grounds of arrest to accused persons [Ankur Kumar Jain v. State].
Justice N Ramesh issued the direction while granting bail to a FIITJEE official accused of cheating 262 parents of ₹2.62 crore in connection with coaching programmes for competitive examinations.
The Court found that the police had failed to communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing, rendering his arrest and subsequent remand illegal. It said,
"When an arrest is vitiated, the Court has no choice but to release the accused, however grave the accusation. In very serious cases, accused persons are being released not because the case against them is weak but because the police did not do what the law requires at the moment of arrest."
It added that such lapses ultimately prejudiced victims and undermined fair investigations.
"The persons who suffer are the victims, here 262 parents, and the cause of a fair investigation. It is not clear whether this is the result of ignorance or of indifference. Either way, the police need to be sensitised, trained and educated on this point, and the officer who commits the lapse must answer for it."
The case arose from allegations that FIITJEE Limited, in collaboration with Suguna PIP School in Coimbatore, collected refundable caution deposits of ₹1 lakh each from parents enrolling their children in JEE and NEET coaching programmes. The deposits were allegedly not returned after the courses ended, prompting the registration of a cheating case in May 2026.
Ankur Kumar Jain, identified as FIITJEE's Regional Managing Partner for Tamil Nadu, was implicated based on an agreement he allegedly signed on behalf of the company. Jain was formally arrested on August 11 while already lodged in Puzhal Central Prison in connection with another case.
Before the High Court, Jain argued that he was merely a salaried employee and that the police had furnished only a printed arrest memorandum in Tamil, a language he could not read. The State maintained that its contents had been explained to him in English.
However, the Court found that the memorandum mentioned only the crime number and penal provision without explaining Jain's alleged role.
"An oral explanation of a memo that itself contains no grounds is not a communication of grounds in writing in a language the arrested person understands," the Court held.
The Court criticised the police for suggesting that Jain might abscond because he was a North Indian. It consequently found the arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
The Court noted that despite its September 7 direction to replace outdated arrest forms with those requiring detailed written grounds, police continued using old forms. It directed the DGP to issue instructions treating failure to furnish written grounds of arrest as dereliction of duty attracting departmental proceedings.
The matter will be heard for reporting compliance on November 10, 2026.
Senior Advocate A Ramesh, instructed by Advocate R Ashwin, represented Jain.
Government Advocate M M I Khaleel appeared for the State.
[Read Order]