Supreme Court: In a Special Leave Petition filed by Tamil Nadu Member of the Legislative Assembly (‘MLA’) ‘Poovai’ M. Jagan Moorthy challenging the judgment of the Madras High Court—which had refused to grant him anticipatory bail in connection with an alleged abduction case involving a minor boy, a Division Bench of Manoj Misra and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ., while observing that the matter required consideration, granted anticipatory bail to Jagan Moorthy.
Background
The case arose from the alleged abduction of a teenage boy, reportedly in retaliation after his elder brother, aged 23, married a 21-year-old woman from Theni without the consent of her family. Following their elopement, the couple went into hiding.
According to the complaint lodged by the boy’s mother, members of the girl’s family, accompanied by a group of unidentified individuals, forcibly entered her residence in search of her elder son. When they failed to locate him, the group allegedly abducted her younger son, who was later found abandoned and injured near a hotel. Pursuant to the police complaint, multiple arrests were made.
Jagan Moorthy’s application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Madras High Court on 27-06-2025, on the ground that there was prima facie material indicating his involvement in the alleged offence.
Aggrieved by the said order, he filed the present Special Leave Petition.
Jagan Moorthy submitted that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the abductee had been recovered, and not from the possession or control of Jagan Moorthy. It was contended that Jagan Moorthy had been implicated for mala fide reasons by alleging his involvement in the abduction. It was further submitted that, even assuming Jagan Moorthy had interacted with one of the parties to the dispute, such interaction could only be viewed in the context of attempting to settle the matter. It was also argued that, in any event, no custodial interrogation of Jagan Moorthy was warranted.
Court’s order
The Court observed that the matter required consideration and accordingly issued notice.
In the meantime, the Court directed that, in the event Jagan Moorthy was arrested, he shall be released on a personal bond of ₹25,000/-, subject to the condition that he shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten any witnesses or tamper with the evidence.
[M Jagan Moorthy v. Inspector of Police, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1393, decided on 30-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Prabakaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Apurba Kumar Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. P S Amalraj, Adv. Mr. Muthuchharan Sundresh, Adv. Mr. Ma Gouthaman, Adv. Mr. M. Velmurugan, Adv. Mrs. Usha Prabakaran, Adv. Mr. Maheswaran Prabakaran, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. Mr. M Naveen, Adv. Mr. R Senthil Kumar, Adv. Mr. G Jai Singh, Adv. Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv. Mrs. Harini Ramsankar, Adv. M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR
