ED attack case: Kerala HC seeks response on bail cancellation plea
text_fields
Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Monday issued notice to the ninth accused in the case related 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. The Court also raised questions over the progress of the police investigation and the State’s plea seeking cancellation of his bail.
Justice C.S. Dias was hearing a petition filed by the State challenging the order of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which had granted bail to Harishkumar, the ninth accused in the case.
The High Court directed that notice be issued to Harishkumar and granted him time to file his response. The matter has been posted for further hearing on July 20.
"I cannot unilaterally cancel bail without hearing him. He is already on bail," Justice Dias orally observed while rejecting the State’s request for immediate cancellation of bail.
During the hearing, the Court questioned the prosecution regarding the pace of the investigation and asked why police custody had not been sought while the accused was 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 people had gathered outside the residence during the ED search on May 27 and allegedly attacked ED officials, CRPF personnel and police officers.
Director General of Prosecution T. Asaf Ali informed the Court that only 25 accused had been arrested so far and that mobile phones seized from them, including Harishkumar’s, had been sent for forensic examination.
He argued that custodial interrogation would become meaningful only after the Forensic Science Laboratory report was received, adding that the investigation into the larger conspiracy behind the alleged attack was still at an initial stage.
The State further argued that the District Court’s bail order was flawed as the Public Prosecutor had made incorrect submissions during the bail hearing.
However, Justice Dias declined to accept the argument, observing that the prosecutor only assists the Court and that the decision to grant or deny bail ultimately rests with the judge. The Court remarked that if the prosecutor had acted against instructions, appropriate proceedings should be initiated against her.
The High Court also 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 further expressed prima facie doubts over the applicability of certain charges, including organised crime provisions, and asked the prosecution to substantiate allegations of grievous injuries with medical records.
The prosecution maintained that video footage and other digital evidence showed Harishkumar’s active involvement in the incident.
With IANS inputs