A court here Saturday reserved orders on the Tamil Nadu government's plea for cancelling the bail of two key accused in the 2017 Kodanad estate break-in case even as one of them filed a petition seeking to make a confessional statement.
After hearing arguments by counsels for the government and accused K V Sayan and K C Manoj, Nigiris District Judge P Vadamalai reserved the orders for February 8.
Earlier, complying with the judge's January 29 order, nine of the ten accused in the case appeared before the court.
Judge Vadamalai ordered that all the accused should be present in the court on the next date of hearing.
Sayan then filed a petition seeking the permission of the court to record his confessional statement about the crime. The judge posted it to February 8.
The government had moved the court for cancellation of bail to Sayan and Manoj, contending that they were hampering the investigation by their public statements.
It cited a video footage recently released by New Delhi-based journalist Mathew Samuel in which they had alleged involvement of Chief Minister K Palaniswami in the heist.
Palaniswami rejected the charges and filed a defamation suit in the Madras High Court which had restrained Samuel and six others, including Sayan and Manoj, from making any statement linking Palaniswami to the Kodanad case.
The matter related to a robbery attempt on April 23, 2017 at the Kodanad estate, the hilly retreat home of late chief minister J Jayalalithaa in the district, that left a security guard dead.
A total of 10 people were arrested in the case and a chargesheet filed.
Later, Kanagaraj and Sayan's wife and daughter were killed in separate road accidents during the probe, even as another employee of the property was found dead, in a case of suspected suicide.
Besides Sayan and Manoj, some other accused were granted bail by the court here while a few are under judicial remand.
The two were arrested on January 14 in connection with the video and were released on bail by a Chennai court, while the high court had stayed the FIR against them and four others, including Samuel.
The FIR was filed under IPC sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief).
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
