The Kerala High Court has declined to grant anticipatory bail to six Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) leaders accused of attacking police personnel and damaging public property during a protest against the State government’s liquor policy.
Justice Kauser Edappagath held that the allegations against the applicants revealed a prima facie case of a planned criminal act and that custodial interrogation was necessary as the investigation remains at an early stage.
The Court observed that the case diary indicated serious accusations supported by material gathered during the investigation. It also noted that specific roles had been attributed to each of the accused, making custodial questioning essential for a fair and effective probe.
According to the Court, the police officers who attempted to control the demonstration suffered injuries during the incident. It further expressed concern that granting pre-arrest bail at this stage could allow the accused to influence witnesses or interfere with the ongoing investigation.
The anticipatory bail applications filed by Shresha N, Nikhil Babu, Amal C.S., Renjith A.R., Bhagyalakshmi N.S. and Bibin Varghese were consequently dismissed.
Protest Turned Violent, Says Prosecution
The criminal case stems from a DYFI protest held on June 24, 2026, opposing the Kerala government’s liquor policy.
The prosecution alleged that nearly 100 DYFI workers assembled and marched from Penta Menaka towards the Kanayannur Taluk Office while raising slogans against the government’s policy.
When the procession reached the barricades placed near Maharaja’s College on Park Avenue Road, protesters allegedly ignored repeated police warnings, overturned barricades and attempted to force their way forward.
Investigators claimed that during the confrontation, the accused assaulted the Inspector of Ernakulam Town Police Station and the Sub-Inspector of Kadavanthra Police Station, causing injuries to both officers. They were also accused of damaging police equipment, including lathis and shields, and obstructing police personnel from performing their official duties.
The accused have been booked under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Kerala Public Ways (Restriction of Assemblies and Processions) Act, 2011, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
Defence Claims False Implication
Seeking protection from arrest, the accused argued that they had been falsely implicated and that no material connected them with the alleged offences.
The State opposed the plea, maintaining that releasing the accused before custodial interrogation would hamper the investigation.
After examining the records and rival submissions, the High Court concluded that the gravity of the allegations, coupled with the stage of the investigation, did not justify the grant of anticipatory bail. It held that no exceptional circumstances had been shown to warrant such relief and affirmed that custodial interrogation was required for a proper investigation.
