Court demands original video, no arrests until June 6 for former CM’s bodyguards in Navakerala bus assault case

ALAPPUZHA: The District Sessions Court has deferred the hearing on the anticipatory bail pleas of the security personnel accused of assaulting Youth Congress activists during the Navakerala Sadas rally. Sessions Judge Honey M. Varghese directed law enforcement authorities not to arrest the accused, who served as bodyguards to the former Chief Minister, until the next scheduled hearing on June 6.

The case stems from the incident where high-profile Youth Congress figures, including current MLA A.D. Thomas and Ajay Juel Kuriakose were allegedly assaulted during a protest targeting the Navakerala bus.

During the court proceedings, the defence counsel raised objections regarding the authenticity of the video footage submitted by the prosecution. Acknowledging these concerns, the court ordered the police to produce the original footage captured by the official department photographer alongside a comprehensive forensic report to verify the digital evidence.

Defence counsel B. Sivadas argued that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had acted with prejudice. He pointed out that while the initial case registered through the court invoked bailable offences against the gunmen, the SIT later added a non-bailable charge of attempted murder on the evening of May 30, despite having omitted it in a report submitted to the magistrate earlier that morning. The defence contended that this escalation was executed without fresh medical records or evidence to block bail.

Conversely, the prosecution counsel, P.R. Roy, argued that the actions of the security personnel far exceeded standard security protocols or the line of duty. He stated that the accused brutally assaulted A.D. Thomas and Ajay Juel, without any provocation, repeatedly struck them with batons despite knowing that such continuous blows to critical areas could prove fatal.

Court scrutinises special investigation team

The Sessions Court raised sharp questions regarding the SIT’s sudden escalation of charges, noting that the viability of an attempted murder charge could not be determined conclusively from isolated visual snippets. The judge remarked that a comprehensive view of the events, from start to finish, is essential to establish the timeline and intent.

Referring to the medical reports, the court observed that the victim sustained a minor injury measuring 1x1 centimetre on the head. The bench subsequently questioned the investigative team on how they managed to convene a medical board at 4:00 PM on May 30 and alter the charges to attempted murder by 5:00 PM the very same day.