Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To MLA Poovai Jaganmoorthy In Alleged Abduction Case

Justice G Jayachandran dismissed the bail plea filed by the MLA, noting that there was "prima facie" material to proceed against him.

The MLA had approached the court apprehending arrest in connection with an abduction case registered by the Thiruvallur Police Station based on a complaint by one Lakshmi. Lakshmi had alleged that her elder son had married a girl without the consent of the girl's family. Thereafter, the girl's family, with some miscreants, entered their house in search of her elder son. Since the elder son and his wife went into hiding, the miscreants abducted her younger son, aged 18. Laksmi also alleged that her son was later dropped near a hotel, with injuries.

When the matter was taken up initially, Justice P Velmurugan had criticised the minister for conducting “Kangaroo courts” instead of working for his people. The court had directed the MLA to cooperate with the investigating agencies.

The anticipatory bail petition was then posted before Justice Jayachandran following an order of the Supreme Court.

When the matter was taken up today, Senior Advocate Prabhakaran, appearing for Jaganmoorthy, submitted that he had no direct role in the entire incident and that he was implicated in the case solely based on the confession statement of one Maheswari, which was not admissible evidence. Prabhakaran thus argued that the prosecution was proceeding against Jaganmoorthy with malafide intention and political animosity, who won the seat on an AIADMK ticket.

Prabhakaran argued that, being an MLA, a lot of people used to meet him or call him daily, and similarly, Maheswari had approached him along with the girl's parents. However, he added that being a law-abiding citizen, Jaganmoorthy had asked the parties to approach the police and seek legal help. Except for this, he said that Jaganmoorthy was in no way involved in the case.

Prabhakaran also pointed out that as per the court order, Jaganmoorthy had appeared before the police and had fully cooperated with the investigation. He also submitted that, being a public servant, he would continue to extend his full cooperation for the investigation and there was no requirement of custodial interrogation.

Opposing the anticipatory bail, Additional Advocate General J Ravindran submitted that it was not as if Jaganmoorthy had appeared before the investigating authorities on his own, and even then, he did not cooperate with the authorities as his replies were evasive. Ravindran added that the investigation was at its nascent stage as the matter had been handed over to the CB-CID just three days before.

Ravindran also pointed out that since Jaganmoorthy was a legislator, there was every probability that there would be intimidation. He highlighted that when the police themselves had been intimidated by Jaganmoorthy and his party men when they had approached the MLA as part of the investigation, the common people standing against him would also be intimidated.

Ravindran also stressed that the aim was to decriminalise politics in the State and asked the court not to treat the bail plea like any regular plea.

Case Title: M. Jaganmoorthy v. Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 220

Case No: Crl OP 17521 of 2025