Tamil Nadu Additional Director General of Police (Armed Police) H.M. Jayaram was taken into police custody on Monday (June 16, 2025), minutes after the direction of the Madras High Court in an abduction case in which Kilvaithinakuppam (Reserved) MLA ‘Poovai’ M. Jagan Moorthy is also a suspect.The court directed Tiruvallur district police to take action in accordance with law against the ADGP after the police made a startling revelation that he was one of the suspects in the case. Mr. Jayaram is a 1996-batch IPS officer.Justice P. Velmurugan also came down heavily on the MLA, who leads the Puratchi Bharatham party but had contested in the AIADMK’s ‘two leaves’ symbol in 2021 from Kilvaithinakuppam (SC) constituency in Vellore district, for gathering his supporters in large numbers and preventing the police from inquiring him in the case.
‘Poovai’ M. Jagan Moorthy
| Photo Credit:
X / @jaganmoorthy_m
Passing interim orders on an anticipatory bail petition filed by him, the judge directed the legislator to cooperate with the investigation and decided to take a call on his plea on June 26. In so far as the ADGP was concerned, the judge said, he must be arrested.When the anticipatory bail plea was listed for hearing in the forenoon session, senior counsel S. Prabakaran, representing the MLA, told the court that his client had absolutely nothing to do with the abduction case and yet, the police were keen on arresting and subjecting him to custodial interrogation due to extraneous reasons.The kidnapOn the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) A. Damodaran told the court that the abduction case had been booked on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Lakshmi whose elder son had fallen in love with a woman from Theni district and performed a ‘self-respect marriage’ with the latter in May 2025.The young woman’s father Vanaraja had sought the assistance of Maheshwari, a former woman police constable who had been removed from service, to break the marriage and take his daughter back home. The former constable had spoken to the ADGP who, in turn, had taken the issue to the MLA.The APP claimed the MLA’s “henchmen” had gone to Lakshmi’s residence to abduct her 22-year-old elder son but since he was not at home, they ended up abducting the 18-year-old younger son who was sleeping on the terrace. The victim was taken away by a gang that travelled in two cars.Subsequently, when the police began a search for the youngster, the ADGP’s official car was used to drop the youth back near a bus stand and it was driven by a police constable to avoid checking. Maheshwari and Vanaraja too had travelled in that official car of the ADGP, the APP told the court.ConfessionMr. Damodaran added the (Thiruvalangadu) police (in Tiruvallur district) had so far arrested five accused including Maheshwari, Vanaraja and advocate Sarathkumar belonging to the Puratchi Bharatham party.The APP said, the party advocate and the former police constable had confessed to the crime and their statements clearly talk about the involvement of the MLA in the crime. He said, so far ₹7.5 lakh had been recovered from the accused and only a custodial interrogation would reveal more details.When the judge initially wanted to know why the ADGP was not arrested, the APP said, the Tiruvallur police want to arrest the MLA first and subject him to custodial interrogation before taking action against the ADGP. He also said, the MLA gathered around 2,000 supporters and prevented the police from arresting him.Justice Velmurugan said, the practice of political cadres preventing the police from discharging their duty would stop only if the police press charges of criminal conspiracy and abetment against every other supporter who gather outside the residence of politicians and prevent lawful exercise of duty.‘Extend full cooperation’Later, in the afternoon session, when the ADGP and the MLA appeared before the judge on being summoned, the judge said, an MLA should be true to the people who had voted for him and not involve in activities such as conducting kangaroo courts or gathering his supporters to prevent the police from discharging their duty.He directed the petitioner to appear before the police for the inquiry and extend his fullest cooperation to the investigation. “If you have nothing to hide, then why do you need the presence of hundreds of party cadres. You are an MLA. Go and answer the questions that they want to ask,” the judge told the legislator.In so far as the ADGP was concerned, the judge insisted that he should be arrested. When the ADGP’s counsel told the court that he too was willing to cooperate with the investigation and therefore, need not be arrested, the judge rejected his plea. The judge said, a bureaucrat could not be equated with a people’s representative.(with inputs from R. Sivaraman)
