The Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed the arrest of Ankur Kumar Jain, a regional official of FIITJEE Limited, and directed the Director General of Police (Law and Order), Tamil Nadu, to ensure that police officers statewide comply with the constitutional requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest, with failure to do so attracting departmental action.

Jain was the third accused in Crime No.215/2026 registered by the E2 Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore, on 27 May 2026, for cheating under Section 420 IPC. The complaint alleged that FIITJEE Limited, in arrangement with Suguna PIP School, collected refundable caution deposits of Rs 1 lakh each from parents of students enrolled in integrated coaching for JEE and NEET examinations. The deposits, totalling Rs 2.62 crore, were not returned after the course ended, affecting 262 parents. The first accused is absconding, and the second accused has been granted anticipatory bail.

Jain was not named in the First Information Report. He was arrayed based on an agreement he signed on behalf of FIITJEE with the school and his role as Regional Managing Partner for Tamil Nadu. He was arrested on 15 July 2026 in Crime No.5/2026 on the file of the Economic Offences Wing, Chennai, and lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal. On 11 August 2026, the respondent police recorded his formal arrest in the present case inside the prison. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, under a production warrant on 20 August, given in police custody for one day, and has remained in judicial custody since.

Arrest memo with no grounds violates Constitution

Justice N. Ramesh, who heard the bail petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, found a clear violation of Article 22(1) and Section 47 of the BNSS. The only document served on Jain was a printed arrest memo in Tamil, a language he cannot read. Columns 8 to 11, meant for grounds of arrest, were marked "Nil". The memo cross-referenced the crime number and Section 420 IPC without specifying what Jain was alleged to have done, to whom, when, or on what material.

"The grounds must tell the arrested person of the acts attributed to him, and not merely the law," the court observed, citing the Supreme Court 's ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026). The court also relied on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) and Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab (2026), which held that "when a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused ."

Justice Ramesh held: "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."

The court rejected the police's objection that there was no change of circumstances since an earlier bail petition was dismissed. It noted that the previous petition was not decided on merits and that this was the first time the court was examining the bail prayer on substance.

Court directs police overhaul of arrest procedures

Beyond granting bail, Justice Ramesh suo motu impleaded the Director General of Police (Law and Order), Tamil Nadu, as a party and issued sweeping directions to reform police arrest practices statewide. The court noted that this was not an isolated lapse. In the petitioner's own earlier bail petition (Crl.O.P.No.22765/2026), the court had already directed the DGP to withdraw the printed proforma and replace it with a form requiring narrative grounds. Yet, in Coimbatore, an arresting officer still used an outdated memo referring to the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure.

"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," the judge wrote.

The court ordered the DGP to file a compliance report by 10 November 2026, answering four specific questions: whether any circular on written grounds of arrest has been issued after the Supreme Court judgments; whether the outdated printed proforma has been withdrawn; whether such instructions had reached the Peelamedu police station before 11 August 2026; and what training is being provided to officers on arrest procedures.

Crucially, the court directed that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest in conformity with Mihir Rajesh Shah shall be treated as a dereliction of duty, with the arresting officer liable for departmental proceedings.

Bail granted with stringent conditions

The court granted Jain regular bail on executing a bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties. The petitioner, a right above-knee amputee with 80 per cent permanent disability, was directed to appear before the investigating officer on 48 hours' written notice, not to leave India without court permission, and not to contact any witness or the complainant. The court noted that the first notice under Section 35(3) called him to appear on 18 July, but he had been in prison since 15 July—a fact his wife communicated to the police in writing.

The court directed Jain's immediate release unless his detention is required in any other case. The matter is next listed on 10 November 2026 for the DGP to report compliance with the court's directions.

The judgment reinforces the constitutional right of every arrested person to know the grounds of arrest in writing and in a language they understand. Justice Ramesh made it clear that this requirement is non-negotiable, regardless of the gravity of the allegations.