Over 2,000 homes surveyed and 100 plus CCTV cameras installed by Erode police to strengthen surveillance in the district.
The release also stated that over 100 CCTV cameras have been installed at key locations across the district, with an additional 250 cameras deployed in areas under the Perundurai police sub-division. Six two-wheeler patrols, one four-wheeler, and eight armed teams are conducting round-the-clock patrols.
On May 8, 2025, 54 individuals were detained for suspicious activity, and their fingerprints were collected for analysis. So far, 83 village monitoring meetings have been held across the district. The total number of CCTV cameras installed across Erode district now stands at 13,456.
The increased security measures were disclosed by the police following a complaint from an elderly couple in Marappampalayam, Karuppannan (75) and Lakshmi (65), who reported seeing torchlights near their home and hearing their dogs barking persistently on the evening of Thursday, May 8. Concerned by the unusual activity, the couple informed the local police. Upon investigation, it was found that the torchlight belonged to Kannusamy, a local man who was harvesting ridge gourds from his leased farmland nearby. CCTV footage confirmed that the activity was routine, with no signs of suspicious intent. Furthermore, the police clarified that the couple's dog had vomited due to overfeeding, and not poisoning, as initially feared.
The Erode District Police have urged the public to avoid spreading unverified information and to report any suspicious movements to local police stations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
5 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Chinnakamanpatti cracker unit blast devastates families, kids lose parents
VIRUDHUNAGAR: A Karuppasamy (27) and his wife K Lakshmi (25), like any other day, hopped onto their two-wheeler on Tuesday morning to leave for work at Gokulesh Fireworks in Chinnakamanpatti. The couple had left their two children — K Karuppan (4) and K Iniya Sree (1) — in the care of Karuppasamy's 65-year-old mother. But neither the couple nor their family members were aware of how the following few hours were going to gravely affect them. Around 8.30 am on Tuesday (July 1), an explosion occurred at the cracker unit, allegedly due to the mishandling of pellets by workers, killing 10 individuals, including Lakshmi, and injuring three others, including Karuppasamy. I had been working just a few rooms away from my wife when I heard the explosion, said Karuppasamy. 'In a few seconds, before I could even understand what was going on, everything was over,' he said. Karuppasamy, who has been working in cracker units for 10 years since his father's demise, told TNIE, 'Due to our financial situation, I asked Lakshmi to work, which is how she ended up taking the job.' The couple, married five years ago, was earning a total of Rs 4,500 a week. While Karuppasamy is hospitalised, his two children still remain at home, in the care of their grandmother. Meanwhile, N Alaguchithra (26) from Srevaikaranpatti is still struggling to come to terms with the sudden death of her husband — Nagapandi (28), another victim of the blast. One of her relatives said, 'Five years ago, the couple fell in love and got married. Just 45 days ago, they celebrated the birth of their child at the government hospital, the very place where Nagapandi's autopsy has been carried out.' The relative added that Alaguchithra has been receiving treatment for heart ailments for years.
Scroll.in
5 days ago
- Scroll.in
Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to Tamil Nadu MLA in abduction case
The Supreme Court on Monday granted anticipatory bail to Tamil Nadu MLA Poovai M Jagan Moorthy in a case pertaining to the abduction of a 17-year-old boy. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and NK Singh said that the case needed further review. The court said that if the police arrest Moorthy, he should be released on a personal bond of Rs 25,000, as long as he cooperates with the investigation and does not threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence. Earlier, the Madras High Court had rejected his anticipatory bail plea citing initial evidence suggesting his involvement, Bar and Bench reported. Moorthy had challenged the High Court order in the Supreme Court. The case stems from a police complaint filed by one Lakshmi, whose elder son married a woman from Theni district against the wishes of her family. Fearing retaliation, the couple went into hiding. To trace them, members of the woman's family, with the help of men they had hired, allegedly abducted Lakshmi's younger son from their home. The 17-year-old boy was later found near a hotel with visible injuries. After a police complaint, several persons were taken into custody. Some of them reportedly mentioned Moorthy as being allegedly connected to the incident. The MLA is accused of being involved in the abduction and is also alleged to have later prevented the police from questioning him by having party supporters gather around his home. Moorthy is the chief of the Puratchi Bharatham party. He was elected as an MLA from the KV Kuppam Assembly constituency in 2021 on ally All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's ticket. Moorthy's counsel argued before the Supreme Court that the MLA had been falsely implicated simply based on a co-accused's confession, without direct evidence. Describing the case as being politically motivated, the counsel said: 'The relevant facts were omitted to be considered by the court and instead the High Court had drawn adverse remarks against the petitioner,' The New Indian Express reported.
Scroll.in
19-06-2025
- Scroll.in
Supreme Court sets aside Madras HC order directing arrest of TN police officer in abduction case
The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside a Madras High Court order directing the arrest of Tamil Nadu Additional Director General of Police HM Jayaram in a case pertaining to the abduction of a 17-year-old boy, Live Law reported. The top court also transferred the investigation in the case to the state's Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department. The Tamil Nadu government agreed to it. Further, the Supreme Court urged the chief justice of the Madras High Court to transfer matters related to the abduction to a bench different from the one hearing Jayaram's case, The Indian Express reported. The Madras High Court had on June 16 ordered Jayaram's arrest in a kidnapping case that also named Kilvaithinakuppam MLA Poovai M Jagan Moorthy as a suspect. The police officer claimed that he was subsequently taken into custody for about 24 hours, while the state government maintained that he had merely joined the investigation. The case stems from a police complaint filed by one Lakshmi, whose elder son married a woman from Theni district against the wishes of her family. Fearing retaliation, the couple went into hiding. In a bid to trace them, members of the woman's family, with the help of hired men, allegedly abducted Lakshmi's younger son from their home. The 17-year-old boy was later found abandoned near a hotel with visible injuries. During the investigation, the police discovered that an official vehicle linked to Jayaram was allegedly used in the abduction. The woman's family had reportedly also sought help from Moorthy. The MLA is accused of being involved in the abduction and is also alleged to have later prevented the police from questioning him by having party supporters gather around his residence. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court had described the High Court order directing Jayaram's arrest as shocking. 'I have been a judge for 18 years,' Bhuyan had said. 'I never knew I had this power [to direct arrest].' The Supreme Court then asked the Tamil Nadu government why the officer was suspended if he was not arrested. On Thursday, lawyer Siddharth Dave, representing the Tamil Nadu government, said that Jayaram was not suspended because of the High Court order, The Indian Express reported. He said that the official was suspended as per the provisions of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, under which a civil servant against whom a criminal inquiry is pending can be suspended.
