Kerala HC issues notice on State plea to cancel bail in ED attack case

Kochi, June 29 (IANS) The Kerala High Court on Monday issued notice to the ninth accused in the case relating to the alleged attack on Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials during a search at the rented residence of former Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter, while raising searching questions over the progress of the police investigation and the State’s plea to cancel his bail.

Justice C.S. Dias was hearing a petition filed by the State challenging the order of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, granting bail to Harishkumar, the ninth accused in the case.

The High Court directed issuance of notice to Harishkumar and granted him time to file his response, posting the matter for further hearing on July 20.

“I cannot unilaterally cancel bail without hearing him. He is already on bail,” Justice Dias orally observed while declining the State’s request for immediate cancellation of bail.

During the hearing, the Court questioned the prosecution over its investigation, asking why police custody had not been sought while the accused remained in judicial custody for 27 days.

“He was in custody for 27 days. What were you doing? Did you seek police custody during that period?” the judge asked.

According to the prosecution, nearly 300 persons had assembled outside the residence during the ED search on May 27 and had allegedly attacked ED personnel, CRPF personnel and police officers.

Director General of Prosecution T. Asaf Ali submitted that only 25 accused had so far been arrested and that mobile phones seized from them, including Harishkumar’s, had been sent for forensic examination.

He argued that custodial interrogation would be meaningful only after the Forensic Science Laboratory report was received and maintained that the investigation into the larger conspiracy behind the alleged attack was still at a preliminary stage.

The State also contended that the District Court’s bail order stood vitiated because the Public Prosecutor had made incorrect submissions during the bail hearing.

However, Justice Dias declined to accept that argument, observing that a prosecutor merely assists the court and that the decision to grant or refuse bail ultimately rests with the judge.

If the prosecutor had acted contrary to instructions, the appropriate course would be to initiate proceedings against her, the Court remarked.

The Court further indicated that it would examine only whether the bail order suffered from any legal infirmity and sought clarification on the specific role attributed to Harishkumar.

Justice Dias also expressed prima facie doubt over the applicability of certain charges, including organised crime provisions, while asking the prosecution to substantiate allegations relating to grievous injuries with medical records.

The prosecution maintained that video footage and other digital evidence established Harishkumar’s active involvement in the incident.

–IANS

sg/pgh