CID probing rape, fraud cases against Alliance varsity head

Madhukar Angur is accused of raping his niece over three years

The cases of rape and financial misappropriation involving Alliance University Chancellor Madhukar G Angur are now being probed by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID).

“A total of eight cases are registered against Madhukar G Angur at the Anekal police station. The complainant (his elder sister) asked for a CID probe given the gravity of the allegations. Hence, a decision was taken at the top level to transfer the cases to the CID,” ADGP (Crime) Bhaskar Rao told Deccan Herald.

Anekal falls under the Bengaluru Rural police jurisdiction. The police need to attend to many other cases and may not be able to focus on such a sensitive investigation. Moreover, they neither have the men nor the machinery to investigate a specialised case like an economic offence. Considering these limitations and the gravity of the allegations against Angur, a decision was taken to transfer all the cases to the CID, Rao said.

The cases were transferred to the CID about two weeks ago after the complainant met the top police officers and made a request in that regard.

The police believe that disputes in Angur family led to complaints and counter-complaints. Dr Angur, 60, who holds a doctoral degree from the University of Texas, Arlington, was arrested in early February after his sister complained to the police that he repeatedly raped her 32-year-old daughter between 2011 and 2014.

Victim in depression

Angur’s niece went into depression and quit her job at the university in 2015. Her condition deteriorated and she was hospitalised in January this year. After recovery, she narrated what Angur allegedly did to her. Until then, no one in the family knew about the rape, her mother said in the complaint.

Dr Angur had established Alliance University at Chikkahagade Cross in Chandapura on Anekal Road to fulfil his parents’ wish. He got his siblings to maintain the university and his property in Bengaluru. He also employed his niece (the victim). He claimed that his siblings had lodged a “false” complaint to “usurp” his property.