NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday allowed a plea for anticipatory bail made by a sitting member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, M Jegan Moorthy in a case related to abduction of a girl.
A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N Kotiswar Singh issued notice to the Tamil Nadu police, saying the matter required consideration.
The court allowed his plea against the Madras High Court's order of June 27, 2025, which dismissed his petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The MLA was elected from Kilvaithinankuppam. He is the founder of Puthia Bharatham Katchi. He contested the election in the AIADMK alliance.
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute that the abductee was recovered and not from the possession or control of the applicant.
He claimed, the applicant has been implicated for mala fide reasons on allegations that he had a hand in the abduction. The counsel contended that even assuming that the applicant interacted with one of the parties to the dispute, that may be considered for the purposes of settling the issue. In any event no custodial interrogation was required, he asserted.
"The matter requires consideration. Issue notice," the bench said.
The court sought a response from the police authorities.
"In the meantime, if the petitioner is arrested in connection with the FIR registered at PS – Thiruvalangadu, he would be released on personal bond of Rs 25,000, subject to the undertaking that he would cooperate in the investigation and will not threaten the witnesses or tamper the evidence," the bench said in its order.
In his plea, the legislator claimed the FIR was registered for offences under section 189(2), 329(4) and 140(3) of BNS. Thereafter with a malafide intent to implicate the petitioner based on the confession statement of the co-accused, the FIR was altered alleging the offence under section 189(2), 332(b), 140(1), 61(2) of BNS.
The petitioner submitted in case of one H M Jayaram, who is the Tamil Nadu's ADGP, this court on June 19, 2025 granted the relief to him and had transferred the investigation to CB-CID, Egmore.
"These relevant facts were omitted to be considered by the court and instead without noting these facts the high court had drawn adverse remarks against the petitioner," he contended.
The petitioner pursuant to the orders of high court of June 16, 2025 had appeared before the investigation agency on June 17, 2025 and cooperated before the investigation agency to the fullest.
"The petitioner has been falsely implicated in a fabricated criminal case on the basis of a confession statement of a co-accused, without any direct or corroborative evidence linking him to the alleged offence. The case is politically motivated and intended to tarnish the petitioner’s image, stemming from an incident involving a woman and the parents of a girl who had eloped and married against her family's wishes," the plea contended.
The petitioner claimed that the High Court failed to apply the binding precedent of this court in P Krishna Mohan Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2025), which unequivocally held that the confession of a co-accused cannot be relied upon at the anticipatory bail stage.
"Instead, the High Court invoked Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 8 BNS) in a misapplied manner to justify the petitioner’s implication. No money or material was recovered from the Petitioner. The sum of Rs 7,86,750 allegedly involved in the crime was recovered from the father of the girl, not the petitioner. The inference drawn by the court regarding conspiracy is purely speculative and unsupported by legally admissible evidence," his plea contended.
