Madras HC Rejects Plea To Interrogate BJP Leader For Evidence In Anna University Sexual Assault Case

In a latest interview, Annamalai had claimed that he had supplies connecting greater officers with the Anna College Case. He mentioned that he knew who the accused had known as “Sir” on the time of the offence.

Dismissing the petition filed by Advocate ML Ravi, Justice P Velmurugan mentioned that politicians would carry on making such feedback on a mic and the Courts shouldn’t waste its time on such issues.

“There are such a lot of points on this nation. Deal with it. Individuals will say loads of issues on mic. We do not have to hassle about it. It is all nonsense. Does that imply the court docket has to present time for all these nonsense issues? Do not waste the time of the court docket,” the decide orally remarked.

Ravi submitted that within the aftermath of the Anna College sexual assault case, there have been speculations that the accused had referred to as somebody on the time of the incident and referred to the particular person as “Sir”. Ravi additionally submitted that in a press meet after the incident, the Chennai Metropolis Police Commissioner A Arun had clarified that the accused had acted alone and that there was no particular person referred to as “Sir”.

Whereas so, Ravi mentioned that Annamalai had claimed that he had all the decision information of the accused for a interval of 1 12 months and knew who all he had talked to on the time of the incident. Annamalai had additionally urged the investigation crew to disclose the id of “Sir” and mentioned that he knew the id of the particular person.

Ravi submitted that Annamalai, being a former IPS officer, ought to have revealed and produced all the data out there with him to the investigation crew, as an alternative of giving public statements, which was a violation of prison justice. Ravi submitted that no particular person ought to conceal any materials out there to him with regard to the prison allegations concerned in heinous crimes.

Ravi additional submitted that although he had despatched representations to the DGP and the Particular Investigation Workforce, asking them to summon Annamalai and inquire concerning the supplies, no motion had been taken on the representations.

Thus, claiming that Annamalai needs to be inquired for concealing proof and deceptive by giving flawed info to the general public, Ravi referred to as for registering a grievance towards Annamalai and to analyze him.

Case Title: ML Ravi v. Director Normal of Police and Others

Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223

Case No: WP Crl 136 of 2025