The Madras High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of KV Kuppam MLA “Poovai” Jaganmoorthy in a case linked to the alleged abduction of an 18-year-old boy. The case stems from a complaint filed by a woman named Lakshmi, who accused the legislator and others of involvement in kidnapping her younger son after her elder son married a girl without the consent of her family.
Justice G Jayachandran, while pronouncing the order, observed that there was “prima facie material” available to proceed against Jaganmoorthy in connection with the abduction. The judge rejected the MLA’s apprehension of arrest and refused to grant pre-arrest bail.
Read Also:-Madras High Court Upholds SBI's Right to Cancel Appointment Due to Adverse CIBIL Report
According to the complaint, Lakshmi’s elder son married a girl despite the girl’s family opposing the alliance. The girl’s family, along with some alleged associates, entered Lakshmi’s house looking for the newly married couple, who had gone into hiding. In their absence, Lakshmi’s younger son, aged 18, was allegedly abducted and later released near a hotel with injuries.
When the matter initially came before Justice P Velmurugan, the court had expressed disapproval over the MLA’s involvement, remarking:
“It is not appropriate for ministers to conduct kangaroo courts instead of working for their people.”
The judge had directed Jaganmoorthy to fully cooperate with the investigation. Later, the Supreme Court directed that the anticipatory bail plea be heard by Justice Jayachandran.
Senior Advocate Prabhakaran, appearing on behalf of Jaganmoorthy, argued that the MLA had no direct role in the alleged kidnapping and was falsely implicated based only on the confession statement of one Maheswari, which was not legally admissible. Prabhakaran contended:
“Jaganmoorthy has no personal involvement, and the prosecution is acting with malafide intention and political animosity.”
He further submitted that being an elected representative, Jaganmoorthy meets several people daily, and Maheswari had come to him along with the girl’s parents. The lawyer maintained that Jaganmoorthy had merely asked them to seek legal help through police channels and did nothing beyond that. Prabhakaran highlighted that Jaganmoorthy had already appeared before the police as directed and had fully cooperated with the investigation. He added that, as a public servant, Jaganmoorthy would continue to extend cooperation, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.
However, Additional Advocate General J Ravindran, appearing for the state, opposed the anticipatory bail plea, arguing that Jaganmoorthy had not voluntarily appeared before the authorities and had in fact given “evasive” answers during questioning. Ravindran stated that the investigation had only recently been handed over to the CB-CID, making it premature to grant bail.
The Additional Advocate General cautioned the court that since Jaganmoorthy holds a powerful political position, there was a likelihood of threats or intimidation. Ravindran pointed out:
Read Also:-Madras High Court Issues Notice to IAS Officers in Contempt Case Over Encroachment of Temple Land
“When even police officers faced intimidation while investigating, ordinary witnesses could also be pressured.”
He emphasised the need to ensure a clean political environment in Tamil Nadu, urging the court not to treat the case like a routine bail plea.
After considering the submissions of both parties, Justice Jayachandran held that there was sufficient material to warrant further investigation against Jaganmoorthy and refused to grant anticipatory bail.
Case Title: M. Jaganmoorthy v. Inspector of Police
Case Number: Crl OP 17521 of 2025
