Nava Kerala Sadas assault case: Why SIT failed to justify addition of non-bailable charge against accused cops?

The District Sessions Court, Alappuzha, which allowed the pre-arrest bail plea of the five accused cops in the Nava Kerala Sadas assault case, was not at all convinced by the reason for the addition of Section 308 IPC, which deals with attempt to commit culpable homicide.

The court, on Tuesday, granted anticipatory bail to the five accused - S Anilkumar, who served as the gunman of then Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, along with members of his security team, S Sandeep, V K Shaiju, R Arun, and V V Vipin.

The SIT had gone to great lengths to substantiate the inclusion of non-bailable offence in the additional statement of facts. District Sessions Judge Honey M Varghese, in the order, said that no new basis was provided to establish the addition of Section 308 IPC, despite the investigating officer claiming that the evidence indicated a possible risk of death to the injured person.

The court also pointed out that the first report had already identified the need to verify wound certificates, visuals, forensic reports, and other material evidence, making the sudden addition of the non-bailable offence appear unconvincing.

The case pertains to an incident on December 15, 2023, during the Nava Kerala Sadas programme in Alappuzha, when KSU and Youth Congress activists protested against the then Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's convoy and were allegedly assaulted by members of the security team.

The court noted that the case initially included only bailable offences. On May 30, the investigating officer submitted a report stating all offences were bailable, with the possibility of adding non-bailable charges.

However, within two hours, a second report was filed, adding the non-bailable charge. The petitioner's counsel argued that this addition lacked proper justification, as no new investigation had been conducted and the materials cited were already available during the first report.

While acknowledging that the investigating officer has the authority to update charges during an ongoing investigation, the court concluded that the SIT had failed to provide a clear justification for the second report.

The court also rejected the prosecution's contention that the accused, if granted bail, could influence the investigation owing to their alleged proximity to the previous government.

The judge observed that there had been a change in government and that the SIT itself had been constituted under the present administration. In such circumstances, the alleged support from the earlier 'power centre' and any influence flowing from it would no longer be available to the accused.

The court further noted that the accused were police constables and said it was difficult to believe that they could influence senior police officials overseeing the investigation.

The court noted that the police personnel had already surrendered their lathis and that the investigation could proceed without taking them into custody.

Reacting to the court’s decision, A D Thomas MLA, who was assaulted by the cops, told Onmanorama, “We are not satisfied with the verdict. We will persist in our fight. A decision on filing an appeal will be taken after holding a meeting with the Director General of Prosecutions Asaf Ali".