The Tamil Nadu Police have formally opposed the bail pleas of Shanti and Mahendra Simhan, associates of Gem Granites founder R. Veeramani, in a high-profile POCSO case. Investigators cited significant risks of evidence tampering and witness intimidation, highlighting alleged financial transactions related to destroying case evidence.
The Tamil Nadu Police have taken a firm stance against the bail applications filed by Shanti and Mahendra Simhan, who are associates of Gem Granites founder R. Veeramani. The two individuals are currently facing serious charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Information Technology Act.
In affidavits submitted to the Chennai POCSO Special Court, the police argued that releasing the accused could undermine the ongoing investigation. Law enforcement officials have expressed concern that the suspects might tamper with evidence or intimidate potential witnesses if granted bail. Investigators have maintained that the investigation is at a critical stage, with several electronic devices seized during the probe still awaiting forensic analysis.
A significant point in the police submission involves specific financial allegations. Investigators have alleged in their counter-affidavit that Shanti received ₹24.63 lakh from R. Veeramani for the purpose of destroying evidence linked to the abuse case. The prosecution has emphasized that the identities of all potential victims remain unverified, which underscores the sensitive nature of the ongoing probe.
The investigation is currently being handled by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the supervision of Additional Commissioner of Police PC Thenmozhi. This legal action follows evidence that gained traction in October 2025, when video material was submitted to authorities.
The Chennai POCSO Special Court is scheduled to deliberate on the bail applications on September 29, 2026. While the defense counsel has argued that the investigation has progressed sufficiently to justify the release of the accused and questioned the validity of the initial complaint, the prosecution remains opposed. Authorities have cited concerns regarding the potential for the accused to influence witnesses, family members, or attempt to flee the country while the legal process remains active.