CHENNAI: Police investigating the Pocso case against GEM Group chairman R Veeramani (85) have now identified multiple survivors who were allegedly sexually assaulted by him. Several of them were minors at the time of the alleged offences. Their statements have also been recorded before a court, a senior city police officer said on Thursday.
“Some of the survivors in this case were minors at the time of the alleged sexual assault, while some of them are still under 18 years of age,” the officer told TNIE. The investigation also revealed that almost all the survivors are from impoverished families, he said.
Police have also invoked provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, after establishing that one of the survivors belongs to a Scheduled Caste community.
“Under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, we are taking steps to provide financial assistance to the survivor,” the officer said.
Meanwhile, an Egmore court on Thursday granted the Greater Chennai Police three-day custody of Veeramani, who was arrested following allegations that he sexually assaulted a minor girl in 2019.
Citing his age and health condition, the court directed the police to question him on the court premises and allowed him to meet his lawyer once a day during the custody, which ends on Sunday evening.
Veeramani was arrested along with his associate Shanthi (60) and her husband Mahendra Simhan (63) on August 29. The trio were subsequently remanded in judicial custody.
The Anti-Trafficking Cell of the Central Crime Branch (CCB) registered the case on October 7, 2025, after receiving a USB drive containing a video purportedly showing the sexual abuse of a minor girl at a house in Teynampet.
Case registered on Oct ’25, arrest made after 11 months
Police identified Veeramani as the suspect in the video and alleged that Shanthi and Mahendra facilitated the offences. The three sections were booked under Sections 7, 8, 15(1) and 21(1) of Pocso Act and Section 67 of IT Act.
Though the case was registered in October 2025, the arrest came nearly 11 months later. Police had earlier attributed the delay to their inability to identify and trace the survivors.
A closure report was allegedly filed, but a special Pocso court rejected it and ordered further investigation, following which the arrests were made. The investigation was continuing to establish the full extent of the alleged offences and identify others involved.