Quick Info In Depth Answers Related Articles similar Articles

Ajith Kumar Custodial Death: YouTubers Claim Motive Was Not Gold Theft, But Over ₹200 Crore in Cash

Share this article

Link copied!

Published on: 15 Aug 2025

Ajith Kumar Custodial Death: YouTubers Claim Motive Was Not Gold Theft, But Over ₹200 Crore in Cash

The custodial death of temple security guard B. Ajith Kumar in Sivaganga district has triggered widespread outrage and ongoing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
While official reports and court proceedings so far have focused on alleged custodial torture following a gold theft complaint filed by a woman named Nikita, some social media commentators have advanced unverified alternative narratives.

Two YouTube channels PrabhaTalks and InfoPolitics Venkee Rathinam have published videos alleging that Ajith Kumar’s death was not linked to a gold theft at all, but rather to large sums of hidden cash exceeding ₹200 crore.

Disclaimer: The following sections summarise YouTubers’ claims. These statements are not verified by any official source, and no credible investigative agency or court record has confirmed the involvement of such large sums in this case.

The YouTubers and Their Claims

PrabhaTalks
- Video Title: Link to Video
- Presenter: PrabhaTalks Host
- Core Claim: On the morning of June 27, 2025 before the theft complaint between ₹200 and ₹300 crore arrived at the Madappuram Kali Temple, allegedly connected to Tamil Nadu ministers. The money was supposedly part of DMK’s election fund distribution strategy, stored in temples to avoid Enforcement Directorate (ED) raids.
- Narrative: The host claims the Sivaganga district’s minister was involved in handling the funds, which were pre-distributed to district ministers to secure votes. The gold theft case is implied to be a cover-up but the murder motive is left vague.
InfoPolitics Venkee Rathinam
- Video Title: Link to Video
- Presenter: Venkee Rathinam
- Core Claim: Ajith Kumar was murdered after he allegedly saw ₹270 crore in stolen money. Two ministers, one acting under the influence of his “mistress,” were said to be involved. The gold theft case was allegedly fabricated using Nikita as a decoy to cover the killing.
- Narrative: This version frames the killing as deliberate to silence Ajith, who might have exposed the money stash. The host uses an activist tone, vowing to continue speaking despite alleged threats.

Side-by-Side Comparison of the Two Narratives

Aspect	PrabhaTalks (₹200–300 Cr)	Venkee Rathinam (₹270 Cr)
Alleged Amount	₹200–300 crore	₹270 crore
Nature of Money	DMK election funds pre-distributed to district ministers	Stolen money hidden, discovered by Ajith
Storage Location	Stored in temples to avoid ED raids	In possession of ministers; Ajith saw it
Motive for Murder	Not clearly linked; implied political context	Direct link - Ajith saw money, was killed
Who’s Involved	Tamil Nadu temple-controlling ministers, Sivaganga minister	Two ministers, one mistress
Role of Nikita	Filed theft complaint that allegedly diverted focus	Allegedly used as decoy to frame theft case
Tone	Political analysis, insider “leak” style	Emotional, activist, moral outrage
Evidence Shown	None	None

Fact Check: What Is Verified and What Is Not

Verified by Official Sources:

Ajith Kumar died in police custody on July 2025, following allegations of torture.
Postmortem revealed 44 injuries and internal bleeding.
CBI has taken over the investigation; final report is pending (expected August 20, 2025).
Madras High Court has ordered ₹25 lakh interim compensation and witness protection.
CCTV footage from the temple premises has been submitted to the court.
Nikita’s gold theft complaint is part of the official case records.

Not Verified / No Official Evidence:

Any ₹200–₹300 crore or ₹270 crore cash being stored at the temple or linked to ministers.
Links between the alleged money and DMK election funding.
Allegation that Ajith was killed specifically because he saw hidden cash.
Role of a “ministers” in ordering the killing.
Connection between money movement and political cover-ups.

Conclusion:
The money-related claims by these YouTubers remain unsubstantiated. No credible public record, CBI statement, or court filing supports the alleged amounts or motives. Readers should treat these narratives as speculation until official findings are released.

Why These Claims Matter

These YouTube allegations, while unverified, are gaining traction among sections of the public, potentially shaping narratives around the case.
The absence of hard evidence makes it crucial for viewers to critically assess such content and seek confirmation from credible investigative updates.

Editorial Note:
We have reported these claims only as unverified public commentary. We strongly advise readers to wait for the official CBI report and judicial proceedings for factual clarity.

Sources:

India | Tamilnadu | Sivagangai

Share this article

Link copied!

You can now subscribe free to our RagaDecode whatsapp channel for updates

Decoded by Raga

About Ragavendran Ramesh

Back to Home

Quick Info

Who was B. Ajith Kumar?

B. Ajith Kumar was a temple security guard in Sivaganga district, Tamil Nadu, who died in police custody in July 2025, reportedly following alleged custodial torture connected to a gold theft complaint.

What triggered the CBI investigation into Ajith Kumar’s death?

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the investigation after widespread outrage over Ajith Kumar’s custodial death, which involved allegations of torture and discrepancies surrounding the gold theft case.

What does the official postmortem report say about Ajith Kumar’s death?

The official postmortem report revealed that Ajith Kumar sustained 44 injuries and suffered internal bleeding, indicating possible custodial torture.

Who filed the gold theft complaint mentioned in the case?

A woman named Nikita filed the gold theft complaint that is central to the official investigation into Ajith Kumar’s death.

What claims were made by the YouTube channel PrabhaTalks?

PrabhaTalks claimed that ₹200–₹300 crore in DMK election funds were stored in the Madappuram Kali Temple to avoid ED raids and that Ajith Kumar’s death might be linked to these funds, not the gold theft.

What allegations did InfoPolitics Venkee Rathinam make?

Venkee Rathinam claimed Ajith Kumar was murdered after discovering ₹270 crore in hidden money linked to two ministers, with the gold theft complaint allegedly fabricated as a cover-up.

Is there any official confirmation of the ₹200–₹300 crore cash claims?

No, there is no official confirmation or credible evidence supporting the claim that ₹200–₹300 crore was stored in the temple or linked to Ajith Kumar’s death.

What action has the Madras High Court taken in the case?

The Madras High Court has ordered ₹25 lakh as interim compensation to Ajith Kumar’s family and has mandated witness protection as part of the ongoing judicial process.

Has the CBI concluded its investigation?

No, the CBI investigation is ongoing, and the final report is expected to be released on August 20, 2025.

What role does Nikita play in the alternative narratives presented by YouTubers?

In the YouTubers’ claims, Nikita is suggested to be a decoy used to fabricate the gold theft complaint and distract from the real motive behind Ajith’s alleged murder involving hidden cash.

What evidence do the YouTube channels provide to support their claims?

The videos from both PrabhaTalks and InfoPolitics Venkee Rathinam do not present any verifiable evidence to support their allegations of hidden money or political involvement.

Why are the claims made by YouTubers considered controversial?

The claims are controversial because they involve serious allegations against political figures without any verified evidence and contradict the official narrative, potentially influencing public opinion based on speculation.

Is there any mention of Enforcement Directorate (ED) involvement in the official case?

No, the excerpt does not mention any official ED involvement in the case. The reference to avoiding ED raids comes solely from the unverified YouTuber claims.

How has the public reacted to the custodial death of Ajith Kumar?

Ajith Kumar’s death has sparked widespread outrage, leading to a CBI investigation and judicial scrutiny, indicating significant public concern over alleged custodial torture and justice delivery.

What are the key differences between the PrabhaTalks and Venkee Rathinam narratives?

While both claim hidden money is involved, PrabhaTalks focuses on DMK election funds stored in temples, whereas Rathinam alleges that Ajith saw stolen cash directly, implicating two ministers and a mistress. Their tones also differ, with one presenting insider analysis and the other adopting an activist stance.

In-Depth Answers

Is there any official connection between Ajith Kumar’s death and political funding?

No, there is no official confirmation or evidence linking Ajith Kumar’s death to political funding or election-related money. These remain speculative claims from non-official sources.

What is the significance of the CCTV footage in this case?

CCTV footage from the temple premises has been submitted to the court as part of the official investigation, potentially serving as key evidence in understanding the sequence of events.

What does the term 'custodial death' mean in this context?

Custodial death refers to the death of a person while in police custody. In Ajith Kumar’s case, it indicates he died while detained by authorities, allegedly due to torture.

Are there any confirmed political figures under investigation in this case?

The excerpt does not confirm any political figures currently under official investigation. Allegations involving ministers are part of the unverified YouTuber narratives, not the official case.

Why are unverified narratives gaining traction online?

The lack of immediate, detailed updates from official sources and public distrust in institutions may be fueling interest in alternative narratives, especially when they are emotionally charged or politically pointed.

What precautions should viewers take when consuming such YouTube content?

Viewers should critically assess such content, verify facts with credible sources, and wait for official investigative updates before forming conclusions based on unverified claims.

What is the current legal status of Nikita’s complaint?

Nikita’s gold theft complaint is part of the official court and investigative records, making it a central piece in the formal case, regardless of the alternative narratives presented online.

Was any mistress officially mentioned in the CBI or court documents?

No, there is no mention of a mistress in any official documentation or reports. This detail appears solely in the claim made by InfoPolitics Venkee Rathinam.

What should readers expect next in this case?

Readers should expect the CBI to release its final investigation report around August 20, 2025, which is likely to provide more definitive answers and legal clarity regarding Ajith Kumar’s death.

Why is there a need for witness protection in this case?

The court has ordered witness protection likely due to the sensitive nature of the case and potential threats to those who might testify, given the public and political dimensions involved.

What kind of compensation has been granted to Ajith Kumar’s family?

An interim compensation of ₹25 lakh has been granted by the Madras High Court, acknowledging the severity of the custodial death while awaiting final investigation outcomes.

Is it legal for YouTubers to speculate on ongoing investigations?

While freedom of speech allows individuals to voice opinions, spreading unverified or potentially defamatory information about an ongoing criminal case can lead to legal consequences, especially if it misleads the public or hampers justice.

What does this case highlight about custodial deaths in India?

The case underscores growing concerns about police accountability, human rights in custody, and the importance of independent investigations like those conducted by the CBI in custodial death cases.

Are the allegations of hidden money linked to the DMK party confirmed?

No, the allegations that the hidden money is linked to the DMK’s election funding are unverified and have not been confirmed by any official agency or court.

Why are temples mentioned in the allegations?

The unverified claims allege that large sums of money were stored in temples to avoid ED scrutiny, particularly as part of a DMK election fund strategy. However, no official evidence supports this.

What role do social media platforms play in shaping public perception of criminal cases?

Social media can significantly influence public perception by rapidly spreading information—both accurate and speculative—which may affect how the public views ongoing investigations and legal proceedings.