CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by former DMK Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi in a graft case against him, holding that he faces the accusation of having received money from school managements for "party fund" and its "final destination" cannot be unearthed unless he is interrogated under custody.

Dismissing the plea, Justice V Lakshminarayanan said while dealing with an application for anticipatory bail, the court 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.

The senior counsel for Mahesh argued that he has cooperated with police investigation and three premises have been searched and documents seized. "The petitioner is not a flight risk...finally, in cases like these, which are borne out on records, no custodial interrogation is essential," the counsel argued.

Among the key points underscored by the State against grant of bail was the involvement of huge sums of money. Though the FIR speaks about a couple of crores, the investigation so far has revealed that a stupendous sum of Rs 400 crore had been collected. The police are taking serious efforts for finding out the money trail and the investigation is at a nascent stage and developing.

Only with the help of custodial interrogation, the deep and pervasive conspiracy can be ferreted out and the case be unravelled.

The judge, in his order said that the plea Mahesh's counsel's plea 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," the court said in its order.

The court, hence, is of the view that if anticipatory bail is granted, 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, the judge noted in the order.

Citing the rejection of bail plea of another accused in the case, Muthukumar (A2), by the HC which held that the allegations are of such a nature that it requires custodial interrogation, the judge said he had no reason to take a different view.

"The gravity of the offence is an essential condition which the court has to consider. Higher the gravity, more the difficulty for a person to get anticipatory bail," the judge said.

Further, the court noted in the order: "The fact that the petitioner 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. In the light of the above discussions, the petition stands dismissed."

Following a complaint from an aggrieved person, D C Elangovan, alleging that large sums of money had been collected, a case was registered for offences including cheating and criminal breach of trust under the BNS, 2023.

The purpose of collecting these huge amounts was to secure permanent recognition, upgradation, statutory approval, for private schools functioning in the state.

B T Arasa Kumar (A1), Raju (A3) and Suresh (A4) have already been arrested and Muthukumar (A2) is absconding. The investigation revealed that the petitioner had links with the accused.

Witnesses were 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 had direct interaction with certain witnesses and had collected amounts from the school managements on the ground that it is for "party fund".

It is further alleged that the petitioner assured that on payment of the "party fund", Government Orders satisfying the demands of the school managements would be issued.

Consequent to this discovery, the police filed an alternation report to add Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention and Corruption (Amendment) Act of 2018. Subsequently, the former minister was questioned for over eight hours and his answers were recorded.

Other arguments of the state against bail were based on findings during the probe. Investigation revealed that the absconding accused A2 is being shielded from the law enforcement agency by the petitioner. Hence, it is the petitioner who is hampering the investigation. It is the intention of the police to confront the petitioner with A2.