HC refuses to transfer Veeramani case to CBI

The Madras High court on Wednesday refused to transfer the investigation into the Protection of children from sexual offence (Pocso) case involving granite baron R Veeramani to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), saying that the special investigation team (SIT) constituted by the Tamil Nadu government should be given time to collect evidence.

A local journalist, Vaaraki, had moved the high court earlier this week seeking transfer of the probe from the SIT to the CBI, expressing apprehension that the SIT would not conduct an independent and effective investigation, due to the involvement of high-ranking officials.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan said the SIT had been formed only four days ago and had already commenced its probe. The court said there was no justification for transferring the investigation to CBI without giving the SIT an opportunity to investigate the case.

“The SIT itself had been formed hardly four days ago and it has commenced its probe. I am sure the Tamil Nadu police does not have a crystal ball or magic wand to collect all evidence at once. Investigation takes time,” the high court said, adding that even without giving the SIT breathing space, asking to transfer probe to CBI will not be proper.

Veeramani and two of his aides were arrested by the Anti-Vice Squad on August 28 in a case under the Pocso Act concerning the alleged rape of minor girls. According to the police, the case was registered after the Intelligence and Technology Police Unit received a USB drive containing video clips which allegedly showed Veeramani sexually assaulting the minors.

The police further said its investigation had revealed that Veeramani had rented a house in Chennai’s Teynampet, where he allegedly lured and sexually assaulted the victims. The two caretakers of the house, Mahendra Simhan and his wife Shanti, were also arrested. The three accused are currently lodged in Puzhal prison.

During the first hearing on Wednesday, the high court said given how sensitive the issue was, one must not politicise the matter.

“It is a sensitive matter. I am more concerned about the children. You cannot politicise it. There are other cases in which you can get publicity. Please do not use this,” the court said.

When the petitioner said he apprehended that an independent investigation would not be carried out and that the investigating team was keeping silent about evidence against certain high-ranking officials, the court questioned how such allegations could be made without allowing the SIT time to investigate.

“We’ll transfer it to the FBI. Totally independent. Out of India. How can you say they’re keeping silent? This is a publicity interest litigation. Four women officers have been appointed. Why are you interfering without giving them an opportunity to investigate?” the High Court said.

The court also asked the petitioner to appear before the SIT and submit any material relevant to the case that he had in his possession.

The petitioner agreed to appear before the SIT.

State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan told the court that anyone was at liberty to appear before the SIT and place materials before the investigating officer.

The high court recorded the submissions and directed the petitioner to appear before the SIT on October 1.