Kerala High Court
S. Thulaseedharan Nair @ Kollam Thulasi vs State Of Kerala on 10 January, 2019
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 20TH POUSHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 8663 of 2018
CRIME NO. 1173/2018 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
S. THULASEEDHARAN NAIR @ KOLLAM THULASI,
AGED 70 YEARS,
S/O SANKU NAIR,TC 23/939/1, SOUPARNIKA, VALIYASALA,
CHALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.SANDEEP
SRI.ALEX ABRAHAM
SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR
SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682 031.
BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER
SMT. REKHA C. NAIR SR. PP.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 8663 of 2018 2
ORDER
The petitioner has been arrayed as the accused in Crime No.1173 of 2018 registered at the Chavara Police Station. The said Crime was registered on 12.10.2018 under Sections 117, 504, 505(b), 505(C), 506(i), 354A(i) (iv), 295A and 298 of the IPC and Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
2. He seeks protective relief under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. through this application.
3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this application are recapitulated as under:
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India by a landmark judgment, held that the exclusionary practice of restricting entry of women of the age group of 10 to 50 years followed at the Sabarimala Temple violates the right of Hindu Women to freely practice their religion and exhibit their devotion to Lord Ayyappa. Certain people were in favour of retaining the exclusionary practice and their cause was taken up by certain political parties. To voice their dissent, meetings and dharnas were held in various places. Such Bail Appl..No. 8663 of 2018 3 a meeting was held near the bus stand at Chavara and certain prominent political leaders participated in the function to air their views. Apparently, their intent was to garner public opinion against the verdict. The petitioner, who happens to be a film actor, and also an office bearer of a Temple Samithi, was invited to speak. The petitioner deliberately and with intent to outrage the feelings of those persons who desired to visit the Temple, exhorted the people to rip those women, who dared to visit the Temple, into two pieces. They were asked to send one piece to the office of the Chief Minister and to despatch the other piece to Delhi, apparently to the Supreme Court. He did not stop at that. He went on pass grossly deprecatory remarks against the Judges of the Apex Court, who rendered the judgment.
4. The learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was carried away by the frenzy and when, on introspection, he realized that he had way too exceeded in speaking in the manner that he did, he duly issued an apology. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is aged about 70 years and he is also suffering from various ailments. He would also submit that none of the offences alleged would be attracted against him.
Bail Appl..No. 8663 of 2018 4
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has very strenuously refuted the submissions advanced by the learned counsel. It is submitted that the opinion expressed by the petitioner in a grossly offensive, violent and reprehensible manner exhorting the people to take up violence against women was an impetus to anti-social elements to create unrest in the State. The violent protests have till date not died down. The words carefully and deliberately used by the petitioner was misogynistic and was made with intent to whip up communal frenzy and incite violence between two classes of people. The petitioner being a person commanding respect from a certain section of the community was expected to be much more responsible while making such violent proclamations, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that several persons have followed the path shown by the petitioner and in order to polarize the citizens, grossly inflammatory proclamations are still being made, day in and day out. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, if relief of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would be a shot in the arm for those elements. Tendering of an apology after the damage was caused is no reason for this Court to exercise its discretionary powers and arm the petitioner with a pre-arrest bail, is the submission.
Bail Appl..No. 8663 of 2018 5
6. I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced by both sides and have perused the case diary which was made available
7. The speech rendered by the petitioner is still in the public domain. As narrated above, the petitioner had exhorted the public to tear those women, who plan to visit the Temple, into two pieces and also told them the manner by which the pieces are to be disposed of. He has also used certain grossly offensive words while referring to the Judges of the Apex Court. It is evident that those words were deliberately used by the petitioner to incite violence. The words chosen was provocative, violent and deliberately intended to cause peace and unrest in the State and to turn people to violence in the name of Lord Ayyappa. The women devotees, who would have had plans to visit the shrine, would have been appalled by the call for violence. Furthermore, the learned Public Prosecutor has produced materials to show that not less than 1000 crimes were registered in various parts of the State of Kerala consequent to the violence unleashed purportedly to maintain the sanctity of the Lord's Temple. Massive loss was caused to the State and private individuals due to the destruction of public and private property by antisocial elements of the society, who have no regard for law. It would be futile for the petitioner to contend at this stage that none of the offences alleged Bail Appl..No. 8663 of 2018 6 against him will be made out. The investigation is still in the early stages and the plea of innocence and false implication set up by the petitioner cannot be accepted. After going through the case diary, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that the allegations are frivolous and vexatious or that he is totally innocent.
8. Just as liberty is precious to the petitioner, so is the society's interest in maintenance of peace, law and order. Both are equally important. The petitioner, who has maliciously and with deliberate intent incited violence and exhorted like minded people to harm women, cannot claim himself to be victim and seek for discretionary relief. As any other right minded citizen, the petitioner was expected to exercise care and caution in his acts and words.
9. After carefully evaluating the nature of allegations, the impact of the exhortations made by the petitioner, its consequences and the need for maintenance of law and order in these trying times, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of pre- arrest bail.
I direct the petitioner to forthwith surrender before the Investigating officer or the Court having jurisdiction and seek regular bail. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered Bail Appl..No. 8663 of 2018 7 expeditiously and orders shall be passed on its merits, ideally on the date of surrender itself.
This application will stand dismissed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE DSV //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE