Dhandayuthapani Swamigal Mutt land: Madras HC dismisses bail plea of sub-registrar in Rs 100-crore fraud case

MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail petition of Sub-Registrar Justin Manikandan Subramanian, who is accused in the alleged fraudulent registration of a Rs 100-crore property belonging to the Dhandayuthapani Swamigal Mutt in Palani.

Justice K Rajasekar had earlier granted the petitioner interim anticipatory bail on July 17, directing him to appear before the CB-CID every day from July 27 to August 3, except Sundays, and cooperate with the investigation.

While granting interim protection, the court had observed that almost the entire registration process had already been completed by the previous sub-registrar and that the petitioner’s role was limited to assigning the registration number after assuming charge. The petitioner had contended that he had merely complied with an earlier High Court direction to register the sale deed and had no role in the alleged conspiracy.

After hearing the parties, Justice Rajasekar on Wednesday dismissed the bail petition.

Meanwhile, a batch of petitions seeking a CBI probe into the alleged Rs 100-crore land fraud came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising Justices CV Karthikeyan and R Sakthivel. The CB-CID submitted a status report in a sealed cover detailing the progress of the investigation conducted so far.

The counsel appearing for the petitioners requested that the report be shared, to which the CB-CID objected, stating that doing so would affect the investigation. Agreeing with the submission, the judges observed that they needed to examine whether the case should be taken up for further hearing or dismissed, and posted the matter to August 12.

The petitioners, including former AIADMK MLA KSN Venugopalu, Palani Municipal Chairperson R Uma Maheswari Pradeep, and Annapoorani Sivakumar, sought transfer of the investigation to the CBI, contending that the alleged fraud involved government officials. They argued that the CB-CID would not be able to conduct a fair and impartial investigation into the role of public servants allegedly involved in the case.