A charge sheet prepared in the case involving alleged sexual offences against minors by Granite Veeramani reportedly names IPS officers, deputy superintendents of police and inspectors, according to a report by Dinamalar. The document has not been independently verified from a court filing or official investigating-agency release in the material available for this report.
Veeramani, 85, and seven others, including his associate Shanthi, 61, were arrested by the Chennai Central Crime Branch in connection with allegations involving minor girls. The report said investigators found that 12 girls had allegedly been affected. The identities of the alleged victims have not been disclosed.
According to the report, investigators are examining allegations that some police personnel attempted to help Veeramani avoid legal action. It said a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act case had earlier been registered against him, but police officials subsequently submitted a report to court stating that evidence sufficient to prove the offence had not been found. The report further alleged that money changed hands in connection with efforts to prevent his arrest and prosecution.
The report also said investigators examined allegations that a businessman, identified as Prakash, collected more than Rs 100 crore on the assurance that Veeramani would not be jailed, and distributed the money to others. It said the investigation also covered alleged extortion from Veeramani by a group, as well as questioning of Congress member Ranjan Kumar and political leader John Pandian.
The Special Investigation Team, or SIT, is reported to have examined the role of Veeramani’s daughter Archana and reviewed statements from arrested persons and the alleged victims. Investigators also reportedly collected digital records and documents concerning alleged payments and gold bars given to police officials.
Dinamalar reported that the proposed charge sheet runs to more than 1,400 pages and includes statements, digital material and other records. However, the supplied report does not provide the charge-sheet number, the court in which it was filed, the investigating agency’s official statement, or the names and responses of the officers allegedly mentioned in it.
The report further claimed that some officers sought the removal of their names through a senior IPS officer and that a decision could be taken at a review meeting chaired by Chief Minister Vijay. These claims are attributed to unnamed government sources and remain unverified in the supplied material. No official response from the Tamil Nadu government, police department or the officers concerned was included.
The case raises a wider governance question about the accountability of police officials in investigations involving children and the safeguards required when an earlier investigation is alleged to have been closed for lack of evidence. The immediate factual milestone is whether the charge sheet is formally filed before the court and what the court record establishes.
