Latest news with #Vishwakarma
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- The Hindu
Tamil Nadu teenager kidnap case: Love, abduction and trial of an ADGP
It is best to start stories from where they begin. This is how this particular tale unravelled: about four years ago, Dhanush, a diploma student of Kalambakkam village in Tiruvallur district, and his friend took part in an inter-college cultural programme at Dindigul. There he met Vijaya Sri, a coordinator of the event. What began as a friendship blossomed into love. A couple of months ago, the couple decided to get married as Mr. Dhanush landed a job at a private company in Vandalur and Ms. Vijaya Sri was also a major (21). They were happily in love. However, the shocks were yet to come. When Ms. Vijaya Sri told her father Vanaraja, a wholesale coconut trader in Theni, that she wished to marry Mr. Dhanush, the family did not take her seriously. But Mr. Vanaraja sought the help of Maheswari, a dismissed Sub-Inspector, to verify Mr. Dhanush's family background. Thereafter, Mr. Vanaraja told his daughter that her marriage to Mr. Dhanush would not be a good idea because he did not match either their caste or financial status (Ms. Vijaya Sri is a Naidu and Mr. Dhanush is Vishwakarma or 'Asaari'). Steadfast in her goal However, Ms. Vijaya Sri was steadfast in her goal of getting married to Mr. Dhanush. She travelled to Chennai, where she and Mr. Dhanush were married in a self-respect ceremony at Periyar Thidal on April 15. They lived in a house at Kalambakkam. In Theni, Ms. Vijaya Sri's parents, incensed by this development, decided to separate the couple and bring the girl back home, especially since several properties were registered in Ms. Vijaya Sri's name. They sought the help of Ms. Maheswari, who had earlier done the background check on Mr. Dhanush. Cut to May 9, when Dhanush's mother Lakshmi reached the District Superintendent of Police office in Tiruvallur and sought police protection for the couple and her family. Again on June 7, around 12.50 a.m., three SUVs drove at breakneck speed into the quiet village of Kalambakkam, stopping at Ms. Lakshmi's house. Five persons banged on the door of the house on Bank Street. The couple were not at home, and the five men forcibly took away Dhanush's brother Inder Chand. They told Ms. Lakshmi that they would release him only if they disclosed the whereabouts of the couple. As soon as they sped away, she called the police control room (100) and then made an online complaint about the abduction of her younger son. Taken to hotel In the meantime, the gang took the boy to a hotel and met a local politician near Poonamallee, evading checks and arrest in spite of the district police conducting regular vehicle inspections on the stretch. Around 3 p.m., the gang abandoned Inder Chand at the Perambakkam bus stand. Her son was physically and mentally harassed by them when he was held in illegal custody, Ms. Lakshmi said in her complaint. At 2 p.m. on June 7, the Thiruvalangadu police registered a case under Sections 189(2) (unlawful assembly), 329(4) (criminal trespass and house trespass), and 140(3) (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder or for ransom) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against five men whose faces were known, but not other details. Thiruvalangadu Inspector of Police K. Naresh registered the case and forwarded it to the Judicial Magistrate Court in Tiruttani. After the copies were sent to higher officers, he took up the case for investigation. Preliminary investigation showed that one of the cars (TN 06-C-0606) belonged to the police department. A senior police officer said, 'We have scrutinised CCTV footage and analysed call records of suspects moving near the house at the time of occurrence. After scrutinising the registration numbers of the cars used by the suspects, we found that one of them belonged to the police department.' It took six days for the police to arrest the suspects. On June 13, the police arrested Vanaraja, 55; Manikandan, 46; Ganeshan, 47; Sarathkumar, 46, of Thutthampakkam near Poonamallee, an advocate and functionary of the Puratchi Bharatham; and Ms. Maheswari, 55, the dismissed policewoman from Madurai. Three cars and over ₹10 lakh in cash were seized from them. During interrogation, they told the police that they had sought the assistance of K.V. Kuppam MLA and Puratchi Bharatham president 'Poovai' M. Jaganmoorthy. They had abducted the boy as instructed by the MLA. High drama in court In the evening of June 14, policemen were deployed in large numbers at the residence of Mr. Jaganmoorthy at Andersonpet on Thirumazhisai-Uthukottai Road. Supporters and relatives of Mr. Jaganmoorthy gathered outside the house to protest against the proposed arrest. After a long wait, the police left as Mr. Jaganmoorthy was not at home. The next day, he moved the Madras High Court for anticipatory bail. Since the petitioner happened to be an MLA, the plea was moved before Justice P. Velmurugan who holds the portfolio of MP/MLA-related cases in the principal seat of the High Court as well as in the Madurai Bench. The judge took up the case before the regular court on Monday. The counsel for Mr. Jaganmoorthy said a false case of abduction had been booked against the MLA, and his client had nothing to do with the charges levelled against him. When his turn to make the submissions came, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) A. Damodaran made a startling revelation: not only the MLA, but an Additional Director-General of Police was also a suspect in the abduction case and the police would be able to unravel more details only after arresting the MLA and subjecting him to custodial interrogation. When the judge asked the APP to name the ADGP, Mr. Damodoran said it was H.M. Jayaram. He went on to say that Ms. Maheswari and advocate Sarath Kumar had given confessional statements confirming the involvement of the MLA and the ADGP in the crime. The APP said the entire conspiracy for the crime had been hatched in a hotel and the police found that the ADGP as well as the MLA had spoken to each other on the phone around the time of abduction. He said the ADGP had called up the MLA and spoken to him for about four minutes and the MLA had called up the ADGP at 11.30 p.m. on the day of abduction. Further, the ADGP's official car had been used to drop the abducted youngster at a nearby bus stand, he said, adding that the car was driven by a police driver and Ms. Maheswari was in the car too. He also said the ADGP's official car had been used in order to escape police checks. Then the judge wanted to know why the ADGP had not been arrested yet. Mr. Damodaran replied that the police wanted to arrest the MLA first and collect more information from him before taking action against the ADGP. However, not in agreement with this submission, the judge directed the police to secure the ADGP and take action against him in accordance with law. Later, the ADGP, who arrived at the court after being summoned, told the judge that he would cooperate in the investigation and need not be arrested, but his prayer was rejected. Stating that a bureaucrat could not be equated with a people's representative, Justice Velmurugan directed the MLA alone to attend the police inquiry and decided to take a call on his anticipatory bail petition on June 26. Around 5.30 p.m., when Mr. Jayaram stepped out of the court hall, still in uniform, the police took him into custody. At 9.15 p.m., he was brought to the Tiruvalangadu police station in Tiruvallur. The interrogation lasted until 2.30 a.m. on Tuesday. Later, he rested at the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruttani. The police officer said Mr. Jayaram had given the abductors his official car; thereby he had abetted the accused in abduction. On Tuesday, the Tamil Nadu government suspended Mr. Jayaram when he was in police custody. A petition was swiftly filed in the Supreme Court against the order of the Madras High Court and his suspension. Meanwhile, a police team, including Tiruvallur DSP N. Tamilarasi and Tiruttani DSP D. Kandhan, continued to interrogate both Mr. Jaganmoorthy and Mr. Jayaram for hours. Tiruvallur Superintendent of Police Srinivasa Perumal also visited the station during the interrogation. Later that evening, both of them walked out of the station. Mr. Srinivasa Perumal said, 'Mr. Jayaram was asked to appear before the investigating officers when summoned.' During interrogation, sources said, Mr. Jayaram told the police that he had given his car to Ms. Maheswari as she claimed she wanted to go to the Tiruttani temple. He had no idea of the abduction, nor was he in any way involved in the crime. Supreme Court intervenes In the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, Mr. Jayaram said he was a responsible police officer with almost 28 years of unblemished record. There was no material on record warranting the custodial interrogation and the police themselves had not sought it. Nobody had made out a case that the petitioner had interfered in the investigation or he would try to do so. 'The impugned order [of the High Court] has caused irreparable harm and prejudice to me affecting my professional and personal reputation. Such damage cannot be undone, underscoring the need for immediate judicial intervention,' Mr. Jayaram said in his affidavit. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order that had directed the police to 'secure and take action' against Mr. Jayaram and also directed that the matter be handed over to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department for further investigation. (With inputs from Mohamed Imranullah S.)
The Hindu
19 hours ago
- The Hindu
Love, abduction and a trial
It is best to start stories from where they begin. This is how this particular tale unravelled: about four years ago, Dhanush, a diploma student of Kalambakkam village in Tiruvallur district, and his friend took part in an inter-college cultural programme at Dindigul. There he met Vijaya Sri, a coordinator of the event. What began as a friendship blossomed into love. A couple of months ago, the couple decided to get married as Mr. Dhanush landed a job at a private company in Vandalur and Ms. Vijaya Sri was also a major (21). They were happily in love. However, the shocks were yet to come. When Ms. Vijaya Sri told her father Vanaraja, a wholesale coconut trader in Theni, that she wished to marry Mr. Dhanush, the family did not take her seriously. But Mr. Vanaraja sought the help of Maheswari, a dismissed Sub-Inspector, to verify Mr. Dhanush's family background. Thereafter, Mr. Vanaraja told his daughter that her marriage to Mr. Dhanush would not be a good idea because he did not match either their caste or financial status (Ms. Vijaya Sri is a Naidu and Mr. Dhanush is Vishwakarma or 'Asaari'). Steadfast in her goal However, Ms. Vijaya Sri was steadfast in her goal of getting married to Mr. Dhanush. She travelled to Chennai, where she and Mr. Dhanush were married in a self-respect ceremony at Periyar Thidal on April 15. They lived in a house at Kalambakkam. In Theni, Ms. Vijaya Sri's parents, incensed by this development, decided to separate the couple and bring the girl back home, especially since several properties were registered in Ms. Vijaya Sri's name. They sought the help of Ms. Maheswari, who had earlier done the background check on Mr. Dhanush. Cut to May 9, when Dhanush's mother Lakshmi reached the District Superintendent of Police office in Tiruvallur and sought police protection for the couple and her family. Again on June 7, around 12.50 a.m., three SUVs drove at breakneck speed into the quiet village of Kalambakkam, stopping at Ms. Lakshmi's house. Five persons banged on the door of the house on Bank Street. The couple were not at home, and the five men forcibly took away Dhanush's brother Inder Chand. They told Ms. Lakshmi that they would release him only if they disclosed the whereabouts of the couple. As soon as they sped away, she called the police control room (100) and then made an online complaint about the abduction of her younger son. Taken to hotel In the meantime, the gang took the boy to a hotel and met a local politician near Poonamallee, evading checks and arrest in spite of the district police conducting regular vehicle inspections on the stretch. Around 3 p.m., the gang abandoned Inder Chand at the Perambakkam bus stand. Her son was physically and mentally harassed by them when he was held in illegal custody, Ms. Lakshmi said in her complaint. At 2 p.m. on June 7, the Thiruvalangadu police registered a case under Sections 189(2) (unlawful assembly), 329(4) (criminal trespass and house trespass), and 140(3) (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder or for ransom) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against five men whose faces were known, but not other details. Thiruvalangadu Inspector of Police K. Naresh registered the case and forwarded it to the Judicial Magistrate Court in Tiruttani. After the copies were sent to higher officers, he took up the case for investigation. Preliminary investigation showed that one of the cars (TN 06-C-0606) belonged to the police department. A senior police officer said, 'We have scrutinised CCTV footage and analysed call records of suspects moving near the house at the time of occurrence. After scrutinising the registration numbers of the cars used by the suspects, we found that one of them belonged to the police department.' It took six days for the police to arrest the suspects. On June 13, the police arrested Vanaraja, 55; Manikandan, 46; Ganeshan, 47; Sarathkumar, 46, of Thutthampakkam near Poonamallee, an advocate and functionary of the Puratchi Bharatham; and Ms. Maheswari, 55, the dismissed policewoman from Madurai. Three cars and over ₹10 lakh in cash were seized from them. During interrogation, they told the police that they had sought the assistance of K.V. Kuppam MLA and Puratchi Bharatham president 'Poovai' M. Jaganmoorthy. They had abducted the boy as instructed by the MLA. High drama in court In the evening of June 14, policemen were deployed in large numbers at the residence of Mr. Jaganmoorthy at Andersonpet on Thirumazhisai-Uthukottai Road. Supporters and relatives of Mr. Jaganmoorthy gathered outside the house to protest against the proposed arrest. After a long wait, the police left as Mr. Jaganmoorthy was not at home. The next day, he moved the Madras High Court for anticipatory bail. Since the petitioner happened to be an MLA, the plea was moved before Justice P. Velmurugan who holds the portfolio of MP/MLA-related cases in the principal seat of the High Court as well as in the Madurai Bench. The judge took up the case before the regular court on Monday. The counsel for Mr. Jaganmoorthy said a false case of abduction had been booked against the MLA, and his client had nothing to do with the charges levelled against him. When his turn to make the submissions came, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) A. Damodaran made a startling revelation: not only the MLA, but an Additional Director-General of Police was also a suspect in the abduction case and the police would be able to unravel more details only after arresting the MLA and subjecting him to custodial interrogation. When the judge asked the APP to name the ADGP, Mr. Damodoran said it was H.M. Jayaram. He went on to say that Ms. Maheswari and advocate Sarath Kumar had given confessional statements confirming the involvement of the MLA and the ADGP in the crime. The APP said the entire conspiracy for the crime had been hatched in a hotel and the police found that the ADGP as well as the MLA had spoken to each other on the phone around the time of abduction. He said the ADGP had called up the MLA and spoken to him for about four minutes and the MLA had called up the ADGP at 11.30 p.m. on the day of abduction. Further, the ADGP's official car had been used to drop the abducted youngster at a nearby bus stand, he said, adding that the car was driven by a police driver and Ms. Maheswari was in the car too. He also said the ADGP's official car had been used in order to escape police checks. Then the judge wanted to know why the ADGP had not been arrested yet. Mr. Damodaran replied that the police wanted to arrest the MLA first and collect more information from him before taking action against the ADGP. However, not in agreement with this submission, the judge directed the police to secure the ADGP and take action against him in accordance with law. Later, the ADGP, who arrived at the court after being summoned, told the judge that he would cooperate in the investigation and need not be arrested, but his prayer was rejected. Stating that a bureaucrat could not be equated with a people's representative, Justice Velmurugan directed the MLA alone to attend the police inquiry and decided to take a call on his anticipatory bail petition on June 26. Around 5.30 p.m., when Mr. Jayaram stepped out of the court hall, still in uniform, the police took him into custody. At 9.15 p.m., he was brought to the Tiruvalangadu police station in Tiruvallur. The interrogation lasted until 2.30 a.m. on Tuesday. Later, he rested at the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruttani. The police officer said Mr. Jayaram had given the abductors his official car; thereby he had abetted the accused in abduction. On Tuesday, the Tamil Nadu government suspended Mr. Jayaram when he was in police custody. A petition was swiftly filed in the Supreme Court against the order of the Madras High Court and his suspension. Meanwhile, a police team, including Tiruvallur DSP N. Tamilarasi and Tiruttani DSP D. Kandhan, continued to interrogate both Mr. Jaganmoorthy and Mr. Jayaram for hours. Tiruvallur Superintendent of Police Srinivasa Perumal also visited the station during the interrogation. Later that evening, both of them walked out of the station. Mr. Srinivasa Perumal said, 'Mr. Jayaram was asked to appear before the investigating officers when summoned.' During interrogation, sources said, Mr. Jayaram told the police that he had given his car to Ms. Maheswari as she claimed she wanted to go to the Tiruttani temple. He had no idea of the abduction, nor was he in any way involved in the crime. Supreme Court intervenes In the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, Mr. Jayaram said he was a responsible police officer with almost 28 years of unblemished record. There was no material on record warranting the custodial interrogation and the police themselves had not sought it. Nobody had made out a case that the petitioner had interfered in the investigation or he would try to do so. 'The impugned order [of the High Court] has caused irreparable harm and prejudice to me affecting my professional and personal reputation. Such damage cannot be undone, underscoring the need for immediate judicial intervention,' Mr. Jayaram said in his affidavit. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order that had directed the police to 'secure and take action' against Mr. Jayaram and also directed that the matter be handed over to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department for further investigation. (With inputs from Mohamed Imranullah)
Time of India
12-06-2025
- Time of India
Tension in Bhadohi village after man fatally attacked
1 2 Varanasi: Tension gripped the Inargaon area under Koirauna police station in Bhadohi district on Wednesday night when one Rajkumar Vishwakarma killed a person, identified as Gulam Ali (32), while he was busy with his work at an oil mill. Bhadohi SP Abhimanyu Manglik said on Thursday that accused was arrested and an axe used in the killing of Ali was found. Officials said that Vishwakarma, who is mentally disturbed, has attacked several persons in the past. During the initial police investigation it came to light that Ali, a resident of Inargaon, was busy operating his oil mill when Vishwakarma raided the place brandishing an axe. Before Ali could understand anything, Vishwakarma struck his neck with the axe and fled the scene. On hearing Ali's cries, local residents and traders rushed him to the hospital, where he succumbed to injuries. Tension gripped the village after this incident. ASP Shubham Agarwal, CO Chaman Singh Chawda along with police force reached the spot. The police launched a manhunt and succeeded in nabbing villagers from both groups were aware of Vishwakarma's mental state and informed the police about it, the officials did not face much difficulty in maintaining peace. However, As a precautionary measure, a heavy police force from Gopiganj, Unj and Koirauna stations was deployed in the village. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
The Hindu
12-06-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Union government's transfer of funds to TN is higher than the State's revenue generated for the Centre, says Annamalai
For every rupee paid by Tamil Nadu to the Union government through the Central GST and Income and Corporate Taxes, the Centre has given the State the same amount through devolution of funds, grant in aid, subsidies, and funds for projects such as roads and airports, contended K. Annamalai, former BJP State president on Thursday. He told journalists in Coimbatore that in 2021-2022, the CGST and Income and Corporate Tax paid by Tamil Nadu was ₹1,10,453 crore and in FY 23, it was ₹1,34,425 crore. In the 2021-2022 fiscal, the Centre gave the State ₹72,510 crore and in 2022-2023, ₹76,465 crore through devolution of funds and grant-in-aid. In 2021-2022, as an instance, the Centre also gave ₹30,456 crore as subsidies (food, fertilizer, etc) apart from funds for projects such as roads and airports. 'So, for every ₹1 paid to the Central government by the State, ₹1 was given back,' he claimed. In the last four years, Tamil Nadu paid the Centre ₹4,36,136 crore and the total transfer to the State by the Centre was ₹5,47,380 crore. Further, the Tamil Nadu government has launched schemes similar to the Vishwakarma scheme and the Janaushadhi schemes of the Union government. But, there are very few beneficiaries registered for the credit-linked subsidy scheme for artisans (Kalaignar Kaivinai Thittam) and the government should share the number of beneficiaries registered for it so far. Similarly, in the case of Mudhalvar Marundhagam, the State government is trying to procure medicine from the Centre and thus blocking the medicines to be supplied to the Janaushadhi outlets in the State, he claimed. Mr. Annamalai said there will be a day when there will be a political change in Tamil Nadu. 'It is inevitable and I am waiting for it,' he said. On the Anna University case, he said he welcomed the defamation case filed by former PRO of Anna University and will not apologise as demanded by him. There should be a CBI inquiry into the case, he said.
New Indian Express
10-06-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
Andhra advancing rapidly under NDA government: Lanka
VIJAYAWADA: Lanka Dinkar, Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh 20-Point Program Implementation Committee, praised the coalition government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu for its achievements in the first year of governance. Speaking at the Secretariat, he congratulated both leaders on completing a year in office following their 2024 electoral victory. Dinkar noted that reviews were conducted across all 26 districts to evaluate the implementation of central and state-sponsored schemes. He cited the success of welfare programs like PM Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, SVANIDHI, Vishwakarma, Suryagarh, and Jal Jeevan Mission, with added state support for SCs, STs, and BCs. He said Andhra Pradesh is correcting past governance failures, particularly in housing and water sectors, and is progressing toward becoming a \$2.4 trillion economy. Investments worth Rs 9.34 lakh crore have been committed, with plans to generate 25 lakh jobs. Dinkar highlighted ongoing infrastructure projects including Amaravati capital development, Visakhapatnam economic zone, Polavaram Phase-1, Ramayapatnam Port, and the BPCL petrochemical complex. He emphasised empowering women through self-help groups, aiming to create 30 lakh 'Lakhpati Didis.'
