Nation Drifting Towards 'Police Raj'? Madras High Court Criticises Snail Pace Investigation In Kidnapping Case Involving MLA, ADGP

Justice G Jayachandran remarked that it was not a regular case which could be closed on a compromise between the parties, but was a classic case of abuse of Government machinery to commit a crime.

The court noted that the incident and the subsequent follow-up events would raise serious concerns about the life and liberty of common men and would raise reasonable apprehension on people's mind that the grate nation was "drifting towards a police raj".

“This is not a case to be conveniently closed as a private dispute between two families and they had arrived at a compromise. It is a case of criminal trespass during night and abduction of a minor boy by force under fear of death. It is a classic case of the abuse of Government machinery to commit a crime for extraneous considerations. Several lakhs of rupees is recovered from the 1st accused, which was meant to pay the hirelings and their Masters. This Court constrain to place on record, this incident and subsequent follow up events had caused serious concern about the life and liberty of common men and a reasonable apprehension in their mind as to whether this great Nation drifting towards 'Police Raj',” the court said.

For context, the case stems from the kidnapping of the younger son of one Lakshmi, whose elder son had married a girl without the consent of the girl's family. Thereafter, the girl's family, with some miscreants, are alleged to have entered their house in search of her elder son. Since the elder son and his wife went into hiding, the miscreants allegedly abducted her younger son, aged 18.

Laksmi also alleged that her son was later dropped off near a hotel, with injuries. It has been alleged that the young boy was dropped off in the official vehicle of the ADGP. It has also been alleged that the MLA had also conspired in the entire events.

Based on Lakshmi's complaint, FIR was registered for offences under Sections 189(2), 329(4), and 140(3) of the BNS 2023 against five identifiable but unknown persons. The case was then transferred to the CB-CID, and a new case was registered for offences under Sections 189(2), 329(4), 140(3), 332(b), 140(1) and 61(2) of BNS.

Three of the accused who were arrested by the police on 7^th June 2025, had moved the bail petitions before the High Court claiming that a compromise had been arrived at between the complainant family and the accused family and that the families were now ready to formalise the marriage between the young couple.

The CB-CID opposed the bail plea, stating that further custodial interrogation was necessary. It was argued that if released on bail, there was a possibility that the accused would tamper with witnesses and there was a likelihood of repetition of the offence.

During the hearing, the court noted that though there were materials against the MLA and the ADGP, they were not yet summoned for investigation. When the Additional Advocate General informed the court that the MLA and the ADGP had gotten favourable orders from the Supreme Court, the court noted that such protection was only against detaining them and was not an immunity from interrogation.

The court also added that though there was strong suspicion about the involvement of the MLA and the ADGP, the pace with which the investigation was conducted would show that the Investigating Officer was scared to reach the powerful persons.

“The call records between the accused persons as well as the CCTV footages shows a very strong suspicion about the involvement of a powerful Politician and a senior Police Officer. No doubt, they have right and wherewithal to approach the highest Court of this Country and get protective order. However, such protection is only from detaining them and not an immunity from interrogation. The pace in which the investigation is being conducted by CB-CID, as stated by the Investigating Officer himself, is a clear proof that the Investigating Officer is scared to reach the powerful persons. The investigation is moving in snail pace expecting something else to happen,” the court noted.

The court also remarked that though the investigation was transferred to the CB-CID, not much progress had been made, and the actions taken did not inspire much confidence in the investigation. One of the reasons, the court believed, was that one of the suspects was an IPS cadre officer and another was a powerful leader of a political party and sitting MLA. However, the court said that it believed the investigation would be carried out in due course and expeditiously, restoring faith in the Police and Judiciary.

With respect to the present case, the court noted that some accused were yet to be secured and the release of the petitioners would hinder the progress of the investigation. Thus, the court was not inclined to grant them bail and dismissed their pleas.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. Vivekananthan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General, Assisted by Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Vanaraj and Others v. The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 254

Case No: Criminal Original Petition No.20309 of 2025