Madurai, Aug 15:
The Madurai Principal District Court has rejected the bail petitions of two accused, including a Deputy Collector-rank official, in connection with the alleged fraudulent transfer of a ₹60-crore property belonging to a trust attached to the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple and Alagarkoil.
The accused, Anbalagan, Personal Assistant (Land) to the Ramanathapuram District Collector, and Rajkumar of Pudukottai, had sought bail in the case. The court rejected their petitions after the prosecution strongly opposed their release, stating that the charges were serious and that granting bail at this stage could hamper the ongoing investigation.
Anbalagan was arrested by the Central Crime Branch (CCB) on August 4. Following his arrest, the State government suspended him from service. Police have so far arrested five persons in connection with the alleged land fraud.
When the bail petitions came up before Principal District Judge Sai Saravanan on Thursday evening, Government Advocate P Pandi opposed the pleas and submitted that the investigation was at a crucial stage. After considering the submissions, the court dismissed the bail petitions.
Meanwhile, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday adjourned to September 11 the hearing on anticipatory bail petitions filed by 10 other accused in the case.
The petitioners — Ramayi Ayyar, Senthamizhselvi, Prema, Muthurani, Rajendran, Kulandhaiyya, Pushparaj, Jothi, Geetha and Kavitha — denied involvement in the alleged fraud and sought protection from arrest.
In their petitions, they claimed that the disputed property had originally been purchased in 1912 by Pudukottai Prince Dakshinamurthy Durairaja and had remained under the control of his legal heirs.
They further contended that a will executed in 1930 only stipulated that income from the property should be used for charitable or trust-related purposes connected with the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple and did not transfer ownership of the land to the temple.
The petitioners also claimed that the temple’s name was entered in revenue records due to clerical errors. According to them, subsequent orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and District Revenue Officer restored the title in the name of the original owner, Pudukottai Dakshinamoorthy Durairaja.
The petitioners assured the High Court that they would cooperate with the investigation and sought anticipatory bail. The court has now posted the matter for further hearing on September 11.