The Madras High Court denied anticipatory bail to former BJP leader Karuppu M Muruganandham on October 16. He faces serious accusations of sexual exploitation, financial fraud, and leaking morphed videos. Justice K Murali Shankar said, "The other allegations concerning the criminal intimidation and the circulation of nude photographs require independent investigation."
The Madras High Court has refused pre-arrest bail, and directed police to remove objectionable content from websites.
The Madras High Court has denied anticipatory bail to former Tamil Nadu BJP state general secretary Karuppu M Muruganandham, who is accused of sexually exploiting a woman on the promise of marriage, misappropriating Rs 4 crore from the sale of her house, and circulating her nude and AI-generated morphed videos.
On September 18, after an enquiry, the party relieved Muruganandham from all party responsibilities.
The High Court, acting on his anticipatory bail plea, on October 16 considered some of the contentious online content and directed the police to take it down immediately from the alleged websites.
Justice K Murali Shankar said that the alleged circulation of nude and morphed images, if proved, would involve a serious invasion of the complainant's privacy, dignity and reputation. He directed the investigator to trace the material's origin and establish the role, if any, of the petitioner and other accused.
"The other allegations concerning the criminal intimidation and the creation and the circulation of nude photographs and videos and morphed images require independent investigation. No doubt, the mere fact that the punishment prescribed for the other alleged offences does not exceed 7 years would not by itself entitle the petitioner to get anticipatory bail," the order said.
Allegations
According to the prosecution, Muruganandham was accused of promising to marry a woman member of the same party, persuading her to sell her house for about Rs 4 crore, and misappropriating the sale proceeds. After she executed a sale deed on January 14, 2025, the entire sale consideration was swindled by the petitioner.
The complainant alleged that Muruganandham assured her he would marry her and started living with her and her two children. It was alleged that he started to abuse the complainant and compelled her to have a sexual relationship with other politicians.
Since the complainant questioned the sale consideration and transfer of the said property to another person, he started to harass her, and she was constrained to lodge a complaint before the party head in New Delhi, and after enquiry, the petitioner was removed from the post of the General Secretary on September 18.
According to the facts, Muruganandham, to take revenge, in collusion with the other accused, has uploaded the nude photos and videos of the complainant in the Porn websites, and the complainant, after coming to know about the same and while checking it, came to know that the petitioner had taken secret videos of her.
It was claimed that the accused, including the petitioner, have created AI-generated nude videos and have also morphed the face of the complainant along with the other political leaders in Tamil Nadu and uploaded the same, and that he subjected the complainant to threats and intimidation continuously and that, therefore, she was forced to lodge the above complaint.
No false promise of marriage
Senior advocate R Gandhi and advocate R Venkatesan, appearing for Muruganandham, submitted that he is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR, and that he had played a vital role in the BJP party and he had been doing so many welfare measures to the people through his party, that the complainant was introduced by the other accused in 2024 stating that her husband had committed cruelties and she has been abandoned by her husband along with her children and her divorce petition is pending.
The counsel argued that the complainant wanted to join the political party for strong support and safety for herself and her children, and that she demanded money as a hand loan from him for the education purposes of her children.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to know that the complainant had allegedly been cheating him by extorting money and that she had developed a relationship with some other persons and subsequently there arose a difference of opinion between them; that the complainant started to make threats, that if the complainant is not made out as MLA or MP, she will infringe the reputation of the petitioner among the public, the counsel added.
The woman was stated to have filed a false complaint against the politician as the relationship between him and the complainant was consensual. The lawyers said there was never any false promise of marriage, and that the allegation of sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage was legally unsustainable.
The respondent police filed a counter affidavit raising serious objections to the grant of anticipatory bail.
Muruganandham claimed he had not created, uploaded or circulated any nude photographs, videos or morphed images of the complainant and that there is no material connecting the petitioner with the alleged circulation of the photographs and videos.
State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan contested the claims and argued that the present case not only involved a dispute stemming from a personal relationship, but also the allegations of financial exploitation, criminal intimidation and creation and circulation of objectionable photographs and videos of the complainant,
Sathyan added that the electronic devices, digital records and financial transactions and the role played by the persons involved in creating and uploading the objectionable photographs and videos have to be investigated and that granting of anticipatory bail at this stage would hamper the ongoing investigation.
The court underlined the need to trace the sources of alleged objectionable electronic materials, the woman's apprehension of interference with the police's investigation, and criminal intimidation.