Love, abduction and a trial

It is best to start stories from where they begin. This is how this particular tale unravelled: about four years ago, Dhanush, a diploma student of Kalambakkam village in Tiruvallur district, and his friend took part in an inter-college cultural programme at Dindigul. There he met Vijaya Sri, a coordinator of the event. What began as a friendship blossomed into love. A couple of months ago, the couple decided to get married as Mr. Dhanush landed a job at a private company in Vandalur and Ms. Vijaya Sri was also a major (21). They were happily in love.

However, the shocks were yet to come. When Ms. Vijaya Sri told her father Vanaraja, a wholesale coconut trader in Theni, that she wished to marry Mr. Dhanush, the family did not take her seriously. But Mr. Vanaraja sought the help of Maheswari, a dismissed Sub-Inspector, to verify Mr. Dhanush’s family background. Thereafter, Mr. Vanaraja told his daughter that her marriage to Mr. Dhanush would not be a good idea because he did not match either their caste or financial status (Ms. Vijaya Sri is a Naidu and Mr. Dhanush is Vishwakarma or ‘Asaari’).

Steadfast in her goal

However, Ms. Vijaya Sri was steadfast in her goal of getting married to Mr. Dhanush. She travelled to Chennai, where she and Mr. Dhanush were married in a self-respect ceremony at Periyar Thidal on April 15. They lived in a house at Kalambakkam. In Theni, Ms. Vijaya Sri’s parents, incensed by this development, decided to separate the couple and bring the girl back home, especially since several properties were registered in Ms. Vijaya Sri’s name. They sought the help of Ms. Maheswari, who had earlier done the background check on Mr. Dhanush.

Cut to May 9, when Dhanush’s mother Lakshmi reached the District Superintendent of Police office in Tiruvallur and sought police protection for the couple and her family. Again on June 7, around 12.50 a.m., three SUVs drove at breakneck speed into the quiet village of Kalambakkam, stopping at Ms. Lakshmi’s house. Five persons banged on the door of the house on Bank Street. The couple were not at home, and the five men forcibly took away Dhanush’s brother Inder Chand. They told Ms. Lakshmi that they would release him only if they disclosed the whereabouts of the couple.

As soon as they sped away, she called the police control room (100) and then made an online complaint about the abduction of her younger son.

Taken to hotel

In the meantime, the gang took the boy to a hotel and met a local politician near Poonamallee, evading checks and arrest in spite of the district police conducting regular vehicle inspections on the stretch. Around 3 p.m., the gang abandoned Inder Chand at the Perambakkam bus stand.

Her son was physically and mentally harassed by them when he was held in illegal custody, Ms. Lakshmi said in her complaint. At 2 p.m. on June 7, the Thiruvalangadu police registered a case under Sections 189(2) (unlawful assembly), 329(4) (criminal trespass and house trespass), and 140(3) (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder or for ransom) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against five men whose faces were known, but not other details. Thiruvalangadu Inspector of Police K. Naresh registered the case and forwarded it to the Judicial Magistrate Court in Tiruttani. After the copies were sent to higher officers, he took up the case for investigation. Preliminary investigation showed that one of the cars (TN 06-C-0606) belonged to the police department.

A senior police officer said, “We have scrutinised CCTV footage and analysed call records of suspects moving near the house at the time of occurrence. After scrutinising the registration numbers of the cars used by the suspects, we found that one of them belonged to the police department.”

It took six days for the police to arrest the suspects. On June 13, the police arrested Vanaraja, 55; Manikandan, 46; Ganeshan, 47; Sarathkumar, 46, of Thutthampakkam near Poonamallee, an advocate and functionary of the Puratchi Bharatham; and Ms. Maheswari, 55, the dismissed policewoman from Madurai. Three cars and over ₹10 lakh in cash were seized from them. During interrogation, they told the police that they had sought the assistance of K.V. Kuppam MLA and Puratchi Bharatham president ‘Poovai’ M. Jaganmoorthy. They had abducted the boy as instructed by the MLA.

High drama in court

In the evening of June 14, policemen were deployed in large numbers at the residence of Mr. Jaganmoorthy at Andersonpet on Thirumazhisai-Uthukottai Road. Supporters and relatives of Mr. Jaganmoorthy gathered outside the house to protest against the proposed arrest. After a long wait, the police left as Mr. Jaganmoorthy was not at home. The next day, he moved the Madras High Court for anticipatory bail.

Since the petitioner happened to be an MLA, the plea was moved before Justice P. Velmurugan who holds the portfolio of MP/MLA-related cases in the principal seat of the High Court as well as in the Madurai Bench. The judge took up the case before the regular court on Monday. The counsel for Mr. Jaganmoorthy said a false case of abduction had been booked against the MLA, and his client had nothing to do with the charges levelled against him.

When his turn to make the submissions came, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) A. Damodaran made a startling revelation: not only the MLA, but an Additional Director-General of Police was also a suspect in the abduction case and the police would be able to unravel more details only after arresting the MLA and subjecting him to custodial interrogation. When the judge asked the APP to name the ADGP, Mr. Damodoran said it was H.M. Jayaram. He went on to say that Ms. Maheswari and advocate Sarath Kumar had given confessional statements confirming the involvement of the MLA and the ADGP in the crime.

The APP said the entire conspiracy for the crime had been hatched in a hotel and the police found that the ADGP as well as the MLA had spoken to each other on the phone around the time of abduction. He said the ADGP had called up the MLA and spoken to him for about four minutes and the MLA had called up the ADGP at 11.30 p.m. on the day of abduction.

Further, the ADGP’s official car had been used to drop the abducted youngster at a nearby bus stand, he said, adding that the car was driven by a police driver and Ms. Maheswari was in the car too. He also said the ADGP’s official car had been used in order to escape police checks.

Then the judge wanted to know why the ADGP had not been arrested yet. Mr. Damodaran replied that the police wanted to arrest the MLA first and collect more information from him before taking action against the ADGP. However, not in agreement with this submission, the judge directed the police to secure the ADGP and take action against him in accordance with law. Later, the ADGP, who arrived at the court after being summoned, told the judge that he would cooperate in the investigation and need not be arrested, but his prayer was rejected. Stating that a bureaucrat could not be equated with a people’s representative, Justice Velmurugan directed the MLA alone to attend the police inquiry and decided to take a call on his anticipatory bail petition on June 26.

Around 5.30 p.m., when Mr. Jayaram stepped out of the court hall, still in uniform, the police took him into custody. At 9.15 p.m., he was brought to the Tiruvalangadu police station in Tiruvallur. The interrogation lasted until 2.30 a.m. on Tuesday. Later, he rested at the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruttani.

The police officer said Mr. Jayaram had given the abductors his official car; thereby he had abetted the accused in abduction.

On Tuesday, the Tamil Nadu government suspended Mr. Jayaram when he was in police custody. A petition was swiftly filed in the Supreme Court against the order of the Madras High Court and his suspension.

Meanwhile, a police team, including Tiruvallur DSP N. Tamilarasi and Tiruttani DSP D. Kandhan, continued to interrogate both Mr. Jaganmoorthy and Mr. Jayaram for hours. Tiruvallur Superintendent of Police Srinivasa Perumal also visited the station during the interrogation. Later that evening, both of them walked out of the station. Mr. Srinivasa Perumal said, “Mr. Jayaram was asked to appear before the investigating officers when summoned.”

During interrogation, sources said, Mr. Jayaram told the police that he had given his car to Ms. Maheswari as she claimed she wanted to go to the Tiruttani temple. He had no idea of the abduction, nor was he in any way involved in the crime.

Supreme Court intervenes

In the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, Mr. Jayaram said he was a responsible police officer with almost 28 years of unblemished record. There was no material on record warranting the custodial interrogation and the police themselves had not sought it. Nobody had made out a case that the petitioner had interfered in the investigation or he would try to do so. “The impugned order [of the High Court] has caused irreparable harm and prejudice to me affecting my professional and personal reputation. Such damage cannot be undone, underscoring the need for immediate judicial intervention,” Mr. Jayaram said in his affidavit.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order that had directed the police to “secure and take action” against Mr. Jayaram and also directed that the matter be handed over to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department for further investigation.

(With inputs from Mohamed Imranullah)