Supreme Court Makes Interim Anticipatory Bail Of TN MLA Jegan Moorthy In Abduction Case Absolute

The Supreme Court today(September 18) made the June 30 interim order granting anticipatory bail to "Poovai" Jegan Moorthy, MLA of KV Kuppam, Tamil Nadu, in the case alleging his involvement in the abduction of a minor boy, absolute subject to the bail conditions imposed. 

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a special leave petition against the Madras High Court's order dismissing the anticipatory bail petition filed by Moorthy in connection with the alleged abduction of a minor boy. Recently, a bench comprising Justice Misra had extended his anticipatory bail, and today the matter was finally disposed of, considering the fact that the abductee has been recovered, but not from the possession of the MLA. 

The State, represented by Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, vehemently opposed making the anticipatory bail permanent. The Senior Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the offence alleged to have been committed by Moorthy was very serious and that it is punishable with life imprisonment.

However, the bench was inclined, stating that the abductee had been recovered. Justice Misra said: "The abductee has been recovered and the abductee has not been recovered from his possession. Now, he is being implicated as someone who was instrumental in the abduction. In such cases, having some political standing, the possibility of false implication can't be ruled over." 

Tiwari argued that incriminating materials had been recovered, including CCTV videos showing the MLA discussing the matter before the incident took place. However, Justice Misra said that the case of the petitioner was that he was trying to conclude a settlement between the parties. Against this, Moorthy's counsel, Advocate Muthuchharan Sundresh, submitted that a compromise quash has been filed between the MLA and the de facto complainant before the High Court. 

"That is what his case is, that he is trying and approaching for a settlement. But that does not mean that he is involved in it," Justice Misra responded.

However, the State's firm stance was that the compromise itself revealed his complicity. The State said it intended to recover certain amount of cash in possession with the MLA. Both judges, however, said that this is not a case where the bail cannot be made permanent. Justice Misra said that the recovery of money may not be incriminatory as since the money was in cash, it would have been circulated from one person to another unless the cash was numbered. 

Justice Misra said: "We would not have interfered had there been two things. First, there was no recovery of abductee, the abductee is out there. Secondly, the abductee was not recovered from his possession. In such circumstances, if you want to implicate him by other evidence, that's a different thing. That does not require custodial [presence]. He says, he has been persecuted because of this political standing...See, political status is such a thing that you have to always interfere in other causes and that results in various compromises, various settlements but that can't be made a ground for prosecution."

Justice Bagchi also said: "Our purpose is to see that the couple, the boy and the girl, live safely. When there is a compromise, and all prosecution is withdrawn both against the boy, and against his father of the girl, things will crease out and there would be harmonious existence in society..."

Order passed: "Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal arises from an order 27.6.2025 passed by the High Court of juricature at Madras rejecting the anticipatory bail of the Appellant in connection with FIR 101/2025. After considering submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner on 30.6.2026, the following order was passed.

We have heard learned counsel for the Respondent State. We don't find any good reason to discharge the interim order. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by making the interim order absolute following the conditions. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid conditions."

Initially, the MLA had approached the High 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 off near a hotel, with injuries.

Case Details: M JEGAN MOORTHY v THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE|SLP(Crl) No. 9477/2025