The Madras High Court has directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) not to harass former minister and DMK MLA E V Velu and his son E V Kumaran until October 15, while hearing their anticipatory bail pleas in a case linked to alleged illegal soil excavation from a lake in Tiruvannamalai.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan issued the direction after state public prosecutor John Sathyan sought time to file a counter to the bail applications. “If the matter is adjourned at the instance of the prosecutor, you must not harass the petitioners until then,” the judge said, according to the report.
The court adjourned the matter to October 15. The case concerns allegations that soil was excavated from the nearby Malappambadi lake to level a venue for the DMK north zone youth wing conference held in Tiruvannamalai on December 14. The alleged excavation is said to have covered 12 acres, with the depth ranging from 10 feet to 23 feet.
The case was registered in connection with an alleged loss of ₹8.22 crore to the government. The report said the excavation was treated as causing an approximately ₹8 crore loss in the case details. The allegations concern the use of soil from a public water body for work associated with the conference venue.
Velu, 76, and Kumaran moved the High Court for anticipatory bail. According to the report, Velu’s counsel, Rahul Balaji, argued that the first information report did not cite any order, instruction, communication, payment or other act directly linking the former minister to the alleged excavation.
The defence also argued that the conclusion that Velu may have facilitated the alleged offence was based on his relationship with Kumaran, who is described as a director of the company that owns the land. These are submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and remain part of the ongoing court proceedings.
The complaint was filed by anti-corruption NGO Arappor Iyakkam on August 13, while the case was registered on September 24, the report said. Velu’s counsel questioned the timing of the complaint, stating that it was filed nearly 10 months after the alleged events in November and December 2025.
The court’s direction does not decide the allegations or the anticipatory bail applications. It temporarily restricts the manner in which DVAC may proceed against the petitioners until the next hearing, when the prosecution is expected to file its response.
