The Chengalpattu Principal District and Sessions Court on Thursday refused bail to two suspects and adjourned a third plea in the Niyamt Ali murder case, after authorities invoked the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act against the primary accused. The orders, passed on November 13, apply to Muntaqueem Ahmed (32) and Mohammed Ayaan (19), while the petition of Mohammed Sufyan (20) has been posted for hearing on November 20.
The case began as a “man missing” complaint before the investigation widened into an alleged abduction-murder plot involving three accused. Ali, a hotel entrepreneur from the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, travelled to Chennai in July during a financial dispute with Muntaqueem, his former business partner. He went missing shortly after landing, and his phone was unreachable. The Airport Police registered the initial FIR before transferring it to Kilampakkam Police Station based on jurisdiction.
Investigators allege that Ali was abducted upon arrival, murdered, and his body transported across state lines. The trail ended in Odisha, where they had reportedly dumped the body in a crocodile-infested river. Police say digital footprints, airport surveillance, movement logs and witnesses from both Chennai and Sri Vijaya Puram have helped reconstruct the timeline.
The prosecution informed the court that detention orders under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, popularly known as the Goondas Act, were issued on November 10 by the Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City. The Act allows authorities to detain individuals without trial for up to a year if they are considered a threat to public order. It is typically applied in cases involving habitual offenders engaged in activities such as drug trafficking, cybercrime, robbery, or violent crime. Its use in this case, the prosecution argued, reflects concerns that the accused may interfere with the investigation or tamper with evidence if released.
Taking note of the preventive detention, the court dismissed Ayaan’s bail plea and rejected Muntaqueem’s application, stating that the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence made bail inappropriate at this stage. Sufyan’s petition stands adjourned.
While the court’s rejection was based mainly on the detention orders and the seriousness of the charges, investigators note that Muntaqueem has been on the police radar for several years. According to case-handling officers, he has been involved in repeated confrontations linked to financial disputes, and aggressive behaviour that attracted multiple police warnings. Though not previously convicted of a major offence, his record reportedly reflects a consistent pattern of anti-social conduct, prompting authorities to treat him as a possible “habitual offender” under preventive detention norms. Police also allege that he exerts significant influence over younger associates, including co-accused Ayaan, allowing him to mobilise others during disputes.
Investigators have so far examined the business partnership agreement between Ali and Muntaqueem, collected financial records and recorded statements from Ali’s family members, hotel staff and individuals who interacted with him before his journey. Digital evidence, call detail records, bank activity, tower analysis and CCTV inputs, continues to be scrutinised. Search operations were conducted across several districts in Tamil Nadu before the trail extended to Odisha.
