GOVINDH MADHUSOODHANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused No.17 in Crime No.262/2018 of Pampa Police Station for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 188, 332, 333, 353, 283, 427 read with section 149 Penal Code and also under section 3 (2) (e) of the Prevention of Destruction of Public Properties Act is the petitioner.

(2.) According to the prosecution, on 17/10/2016, between 3.15p.m and 4 p.m., the petitioner herein along with about thousand persons formed into an unlawful assembly, in protest against the entry of women to the Sabarimala Temple, pursuant to the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court, resorted to rioting and assaulted the police personnel and destructed the several vehicles of the police, KSRTC and others and, thereby caused loss of RS. 13,26,500.00.

(3.) The petitioner claims that, he is a legal practitioner and practising in the High Court. He is an ardent devotee of Lord Ayyappa and used to go to the Sabarimala Temple in the beginning of every Malayalam month. On 17/10/2018, being the first day of the Malayalam month, the petitioner reached Nilakkal around 10.00 a.m. From Nilakkal, every vehicles were blocked both by the police and the agitators and the petitioner waited for long to proceed towards Pampa. In the meantime, violence started with pelting of stones between the police and some group of people. There was also lathicharge to disburse a group of mob. It was difficult to return. Somehow, the petitioner managed to return around 2.p.m. from Nilakkal and reached back home around 5.30. p.m., in the evening. He claimed that he has not indulged in any criminal activity, as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner alleged that, police had collected details of visuals of the incidents from the visual media and wrongly implicated the petitioner herein on mistaken identity. They have registered crime on omnibus allegations as various incidents that happened at different places were clubbed together and a single crime was registered treating it as a single incident. There was no tangible material to connect the petitioner with the incident. According to the petitioner, he was not connected with the crime and has no criminal antecedents. On that premise, he sought for bail.