E-Paper
Madras HC refuses to transfer Veeramani sexual assault case to CBI, says give SIT time
Madras HC refused to transfer investigation into Pocso casw involving granite baron R Veeramani to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Prefer HTon Google
The Madras High Court on Wednesday refused to transfer the investigation into the case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act involving granite baron R Veeramani to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), saying the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Tamil Nadu government should be given time to collect evidence.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan said the SIT was formed only four days ago and had already commenced its investigation and there was no justification for transferring the probe to the CBI without giving the SIT an opportunity to investigate the case.
“The SIT itself had been formed hardly four days ago. I am sure the TN police does not have a crystal ball or magic wand to collect all evidence at once. Investigation takes time,” the High Court said. “An SIT has been formed and it has commenced investigation. Even without giving them breathing space, asking to transfer probe to CBI will not be proper,” the Court said.
Veeramani and two of his aides were arrested by the Anti-Vice Squad on August 28 in a case under the Pocso Act for allegedly raping 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 that its investigation had revealed that Veeramani had rented a house in Chennai’s Teynampet, where he allegedly lured and sexually assaulted the women. The two caretakers of the house, Mahendra Simhan and his wife Shanti, were also arrested. The three accused are currently lodged in Chennai’s Puzhal prison.
A local journalist, Vaaraki, had moved the high court earlier this week seeking transfer of the probe from the SIT to the CBI. He alleged that high-ranking officials were involved in the case and expressed apprehension that the SIT would not conduct an independent and effective investigation.
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 can not 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.
.
