On his arrival at Chennai airport, Shaji Purushothaman — clad in a blue blazer, white shirt and black trousers — was whisked away in a police van to the Shastri Nagar traffic police station.
But not before a minor scuffle between the police and camera-toting mediapersons.
The cameramen besieged the main suspect in the >May 23 Mercedes accident case , as he was being escorted out of the domestic terminal of the Chennai airport around 7.10 p.m.
Determined to get him on camera, they abused the policemen who tried to stop them.
Amidst a whir of cameras and a volley of abuses, the policemen tried to take Shaji into a waiting van. They covered Shaji’s face with a case file. However, one of the cameramen snatched and flung the file away, giving others a chance to click some photos of the scion of the Empee group.
After what seemed like an eon, Shaji was finally inside the van that was then driven, escorted by two police jeeps, to Shastri Nagar traffic police station. Media vehicles tailed them.
As he entered the station, Shaji attempted to hide his face under his blazer from a lone cameraman, who was camping out at the station. Later, a battalion of lensmen trooped in.
Around 8.30 p.m., after being grilled for 45 minutes at the police station, Shaji was escorted to the residence of the Egmore magistrate L. Abraham Lincoln in Saidapet, and remanded to judicial custody till June 27.
At 9.30 p.m., Shaji was on his way to Puzhal prison.
Police sources said Shaji would soon be taken into police custody for questioning in the case of the car accident that claimed a >13-year-old boy’s life and grievously injured a 10-year-old girl.
Purushothaman withdraws petition
Meanwhile, M. P. Purushothaman, chairman of Empee Group, on Thursday withdrew his petition in the Madras High Court seeking to restrain the police from >harassing his company employees , relatives and domestic help.
The petitioner had said that in the guise of looking for his son Shaji, the police were entering his company premises. Every day, two or three staff members from each company were being taken away in the name of investigation. His relatives and servants were being detained by police, he had said.
When the matter came up before Justice K. K. Sasidharan, the counsel said he might be permitted to withdraw the petition.
Recording this, the Judge said he was dismissing the petition as withdrawn.
