Kerala court grants anticipatory bail to former CM Pinarayi Vijayan's security officers in Congress workers' assault case

A sessions court on Tuesday granted anticipatory bail to five security officers who were part of former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's security team, in a case concerning the alleged assault of Youth Congress and KSU activists during the Nava Kerala Sadas programme in December 2023 [Shaiju VK & ors v Ajay Juel Kuriakose & anr and connected case]..The officers stand accused of attacking two protesters near General Hospital Junction, Alappuzha, while the then-Chief Minister's convoy was passing through the area on December 15, 2023.Alappuzha Sessions judge Honey M Varghese has granted them anticipatory bail in the case. The court held that the prosecution had not demonstrated a compelling need for the custodial interrogation of the accused security officials. The court added appropriate bail conditions can be imposed to ensure that these officers cooperate with the ongoing investigation. "The requirement warranting the indispensable need of the presence of petitioners as claimed by the Investigating Officer can be secured by imposing appropriate conditions. Having regard to the circumstances brought out, I am of the view that petitioners are entitled to get pre-arrest bail, but on conditions," the Court said..The case stems from an incident that took place in December 2023 during the Nava Kerala Sadas programme conducted by the then Left Democratic Front (LDF) government.As a specially designed KSRTC bus carrying former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his cabinet colleagues passed through the hospital junction, Youth Congress and KSU activists, Ajay Juel Kuriakose and Thomas AD raised slogans in protest.The local police personnel deployed at the venue restrained the protesters and moved them to the roadside. Meanwhile, members of the former CM's security team allegedly got out of the vehicle and assaulted the protesters with lathis, causing them injuries.The protestors then approached the jurisdictional magistrate with a private complaint.Acting on the magistrate's direction, the Alappuzha South Police registered a crime against members of the CM's security team, initially invoking bailable offences.Subsequently, the District Crime Branch filed a report stating that the security officers had acted in discharge of their official duties. However, the complainant challenged the report and secured an order for further investigation.Following a change in government, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted on May 21, 2026, to conduct further investigation.The SIT arrayed three additional officers as accused and even added Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), the only non-bailable offence in the case..Seeking anticipatory bail, the accused officers contended before the court that they were only discharging their official duties as security personnel while protecting a 'Z-plus' protectee.They maintained that they had cooperated with the investigators throughout, further adding that the case had acquired political overtones following a change in government.The SIT as well as the complainants, opposed the bail plea, arguing that custodial integration was necessary to examine violation of security protocols.The court , however, observed that questions regarding the applicability of Section 308 IPC and the intention behind the assault could be decided during trial.The court also noted that the political circumstances had changed since the incident, as one of the complainants was now a Member of the Legislative Assembly, while the other was a State-level office-bearer of a political organisation, reducing the possibility of witnesses in the case being intimidated by the accused. The court further observed that the accused security personnel had already appeared before the investigators and that the statements of key witnesses had been recorded.Therefore, the court granted anticipatory bail to the accused securty officers, subject to conditions.The conditions include that they should appear before the investigating officer for interrogation when needed, that they cooperate with the investigation, that they periodically report to the investigation agency and they do not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence. .The accused were represented by advocate B Sivadas.The complainants (Congress workers) were represented by advocates P Roy and T Saji..[Read Order]