A petitioner from the Tambaram area has asked the Madras High Court to transfer the investigation into the Veeramani case to the Central Bureau of Investigation, alleging that assets worth ₹147.87 crore linked to a company owned by the accused were transferred while the case was being closed.
The petition filed by Tambaram resident Varahi came up for hearing again before Justice V. Lakshmi Narayan. During the hearing, the petitioner’s side submitted an additional petition containing allegations about the movement of assets and the alleged use of bribery proceeds.
According to the additional petition, assets valued at ₹147.87 crore belonging to Veeramani’s company had changed hands in connection with efforts to conclude the case and submit a final report. The submission did not establish that the transfers were illegal, but sought further investigation into the circumstances in which they took place.
The petitioner also alleged that information had been received about IPS officer Arun purchasing gold worth ₹24 crore from a prominent jewellery store in Chennai. The petition alleged that the money used for the purchase was transferred through Prakash Kannaiya.
The petitioner’s side further claimed that Prakash Kannaiya left the country and went into hiding after the investigation began. These claims were presented as part of the request for a wider investigation and were not recorded in the supplied report as findings by the court or a completed investigation.
The additional petition sought examination of jewellery-store receipts and bank transactions to determine whether the alleged gold purchase was connected to money received as a bribe and whether the transaction was intended to conceal the movement of those funds. The requested checks would require investigators to establish the source of the money, the sequence of transactions and the identities of those involved.
The petition’s request for a CBI investigation places the handling of the case under scrutiny before the High Court. A transfer to the CBI would change the investigating agency responsible for examining the allegations, but the supplied report does not state that the court has ordered such a transfer.
The report also does not provide the court’s final decision on the petition, details of any response from the accused or officials named in the allegations, or confirmation that the alleged asset transfers, gold purchase or overseas travel have been independently established. The matter was reported as having been heard again before the High Court, with the additional petition forming part of the petitioner’s submissions.
