Actor Gautami cheating case: Madras High Court denies advance bail to film producer Alagappan and family members

Justice C.V. Karthikeyan says, there is enough evidence to suspect that the accused had taken away the actor’s immovable properties and money thinking that she will succumb to cancer

Gautami Tadimalla. File | Photo Credit: M. Vedhan

The Madras High Court on Monday refused to grant anticipatory bail to film producer C. Alagappan and his family members after observing enough evidence to suspect that they had cheated actor Gautami Tadimalla of several crores of rupees.

Justice C.V. Karthikeyan dismissed the anticipatory bail petitions filed by the producer, his wife A.L. Nachal, son A. Alagappan alias Siva, daughter Arthi Alagappan, son-in-law K.M. Baskar and driver Sathish Kumar after accepting the objections raised by the actor.

Representing her, Senior Counsel R. John Satyan told the court his client had been acting in movies since the age of 17 and had been an actor of much prominence in the south Indian film industry. In 2004, she was diagnosed with cancer and had to undergo treatment.

At that time, her daughter was just four years old and therefore, she decided to dispose of her immovable properties at Ramanathapuram, Chengalpattu, Tiruvannamalai and Tiruvallur districts in order to ensure a safe future for her child and it was then that Alagappan gained her confidence.

She had executed various powers of attorney in his favour between 2015 and 2020. He had sold the lands in other districts and used the proceeds to purchase other properties in Chennai and other places in order to avoid capital gains tax. While doing so, he made his family members co-purchasers.

Further, the actor had also accused the producer and his family members of having transferred ₹5.96 crore from her bank account to their individual accounts. “It is thus evident that the accused had conspired to cheat the complainant of her valuable money and property taking advantage of her medical condition,” the judge wrote.

He went on to state: “They probably expected her to meet her maker but she had fought back bravely and had survived and is now present in flesh and blood to take on the accused and prove that they had cheated her when she was in dire circumstances. There could be no better example of betrayal of trust.”

Stating that dishonest intention could be seen clearly in every act of the accused to deceive the actor, the judge said, not only the family members of the film producer but also his driver had signed as a witness in various places and was directly involved in threatening the actor as well as her daughter.

“While examining the nature and gravity of the offence in the instant case, it is seen that the accused have intentionally planned and schemed to cheat the complainant. There is every possibility of the investigation being scuttled if this court was to condone their acts and grant anticipatory bail,” he concluded.