Click the Play button to listen to article

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (September 30) refused to order CBI probe into the POCSO case involving granite baron R Veeramani. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 471]

Justice V Lakshminarayanan said that the Tamil Nadu government had formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the offence and the SIT should be given a breathing time to collect all the evidence in connection with the case.

The court also added that the Tamil Nadu police did not have a crystal ball or a magic wand to get all the evidence at once, adding that the SIT should be permitted to carry on the investigation.

"The SIT itself had been formed hardly 4 days ago. I'm sure TN police does not have a crystal ball or magic wand to get all evidence at once. Investigation takes time, especially as in the present case..Be that as it may, as on today, 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 his two aides were arrested by the Anti-Vice Squad on August 28, over alleged rape of minor girls. The police had stated that the case was registered upon receiving a USB drive by the Intelligence and Technology Police Unit (ITPU) containing video clips which allegedly showed Veeramani sexually assaulting juvenile girls. The police also stated that the investigation revealed that Veeramani had rented a house in Chennai's Teynampet where he lured the victims and sexually assaulted them. The two caretakers of the house, Mahendra Simhan and his wife Shanti, were also arrested along with Veeramani, and the three were lodged in Puzhal prison.

The case was registered for offences under Sections 7,8,15(1), and 21(1) of the POCSO Act, Sections 354(A), 354(C), 201, and 120(B) of IPC and Sections 66(E), and 67(B) of the IT Act.

Vaaraki, an investigative journalist, had approached the court seeking to transfer the investigation in the case from the SIT to the CBI. Arguing that high-ranking officials were involved in the case, he raised an apprehension that the SIT would not carry the investigation independently & effectively, necessitating a probe by an independent agency. 

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the court questioned the genuineness of the plea. The court orally remarked that the issue involved a sensitive case, involving children, some of whom belonged to the Scheduled caste community.

"It's a sensitive matter. I'm more concerned about the children. You can't politicise it. You're not understanding the seriousness of it. There are other cases in which you can get publicity. Please don't use this. There are a lot of children belonging to SC/ST communities," the court orally remarked. 

When the petitioner pointed out that there was an apprehension that an independent investigation would not be carried out in the case and that the investigating team was keeping silent with respect to evidence against some high-ranking officials, the court wondered how such allegations could be made without giving time for the SIT to conduct an investigation.

"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. 4 women officers have been appointed. Why are you interfering without giving them an opportunity to investigate? I think this is at the instance of the accused. You have some axe to grind with the previous regime. Don't use kids for that," the court orally remarked.

When the petitioner informed the court that he had materials to show involvement of some persons, the court said that the petitioner could appear before the SIT and submit all the materials available with him.

The petitioner informed the court that he was willing to appear before the SIT.

The State Public Prosecutor, John Sathyan, also informed the court that any person was at liberty to appear before the SIT and place materials before the investigating officer. The prosecutor also assured the court that the materials given to the SIT would be perused and taken to a logical end. 

Taking note of the submissions, the court directed the petitioner to appear before the SIT on October 1, and submit all the materials in his possession in connection with the case. 

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr Rajkumar Pandian

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. John Sathyan State Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr. Arun Anbumani Government Advocate (Crl.side)

Case Title: Varaaki v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 471

Case No: WP Crl 2605 of 2026

Tags: