The Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram, has dismissed the bail application filed by five persons arrested in connection with the alleged attack on Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials.
Judicial First Class Magistrate Smt. Tania Mariam Jose passed the order on May 30, 2026, in CMP No. 1/2026 arising from Crime No. 762/2026 of Museum Police Station.
The Court refused bail to accused Nos. 1 to 5—Nidin Raj, Manoj, Jeevan, Shahil, and Sreejith—who police arrested on May 28, 2026.
Prosecution Alleges Attack on ED Team After Search Operation
According to the prosecution, ED officials conducted a search at a residence where the Leader of Opposition in Kerala and his daughter were residing.
After completing the search, the officials left the premises at around 2:40 PM in three taxi vehicles.
The prosecution alleged that a crowd of nearly 300 people surrounded the vehicles on the road outside the residence.
Members of the crowd allegedly attacked the vehicles using stones, bricks, sticks, and iron rods.
The mob also allegedly assaulted ED officials travelling in the vehicles.
Further, the prosecution claimed that personnel from the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Kerala Police attempted to intervene but also came under attack.
Authorities estimated the damage caused to the vehicles at approximately ₹3 lakh.
Police registered offences under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
Defence Questions Legality of Arrest
Appearing for the accused, Advocate Madhav Sasija challenged the legality of the arrests.
He argued that authorities failed to communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused and their relatives or friends.
According to the defence, this omission violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the safeguards provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The defence relied on several Kerala High Court decisions, including Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala, Yazin S. v. State of Kerala, and Sainab v. State of Kerala.
Counsel argued that non-compliance with these safeguards entitled the accused to bail.
The defence also contended that the damaged vehicles did not qualify as “public property” under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
Additionally, the accused argued that Section 121(1) of the BNS did not apply because the ED officials were allegedly not performing official duties at the time of the incident.
Prosecution Defends Arrest Procedure
Assistant Public Prosecutor (Senior Grade) Manu Kallampally opposed the bail plea.
He submitted that authorities had communicated the grounds of arrest in writing and fully complied with Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
The prosecution relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra.
According to the State, the arrest memo, arrest intimation records, and remand papers clearly showed that the accused knew the grounds of arrest from the very beginning.
The prosecution further argued that authorities had informed both the accused and their nominated relatives or friends as required by law.
Court Finds Compliance with Constitutional Safeguards
After reviewing the records, the Magistrate found substantial compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements.
The Court noted that authorities had issued notices under Section 48(1) BNSS to persons nominated by each accused, including spouses, friends, and relatives.
All recipients acknowledged receiving the arrest intimation.
The Court also noted that officials informed the District Legal Services Authority and Advocate Hakkim, who represented the accused.
Importantly, the accused had legal representation when police produced them before the Court.
They also filed a bail application without delay.
The Magistrate further observed that authorities submitted written notices communicating the grounds of arrest within about 55 minutes of producing the accused before the Court.
Relying on decisions including Nisar Rahman v. State of Kerala, Viswas Patil v. State of GNCTD, Golu @ Ganesh v. State of Maharashtra, and Thirupathi Vilas Podalwar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the authorities had substantially complied with the law.
The Magistrate also found no evidence that the accused suffered any prejudice because of the alleged procedural lapses.
Court Rejects Objections on Public Property and Official Duty
The Court rejected the argument that the damaged vehicles fell outside the scope of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
According to the Magistrate, property under the possession or control of government authorities can qualify as public property under the Act.
The Court also rejected the challenge to Section 121(1) of the BNS.
The Magistrate observed that the ED officials were returning from an official search operation.
Therefore, the Court held that they could reasonably be considered to have been performing official duties at the relevant time.
As a result, the Court found no merit in the defence objections.
Investigation at Preliminary Stage, Says Court
While refusing bail, the Magistrate highlighted the seriousness of the allegations.
The Court noted that the alleged victims were officers of a Central Government agency carrying out official duties.
According to the order, the incident attracted significant public attention and affected society at large.
The Magistrate also observed that granting bail at this stage could send the wrong message and potentially encourage similar conduct.
The Court recorded that the alleged attack caused fear, trauma, and vulnerability among the ED officials.
The driver of one of the vehicles reportedly suffered injuries to both eyes.
The prosecution also alleged that the attackers used bricks, stones, and sticks during the incident.
Bail Application Dismissed
The Magistrate found a strong prima facie case against the accused.
The Court further noted that the investigation remained at an early stage.
Test identification proceedings are yet to take place, and investigators still need to identify and arrest additional accused persons.
Considering these circumstances, the Court concluded that the interests of the victims and society required the continued custody of the accused.
Accordingly, the Magistrate dismissed the bail application.
Case Details
Case: CMP No. 1/2026 in Crime No. 762/2026, Museum Police Station
Court: Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram
Judge: Smt. Tania Mariam Jose
Date of Order: May 30, 2026
Petitioners/Accused: Nidin Raj & Others
Respondent: State of Kerala
Counsel for Petitioners: Advocate Madhav Sasija
For State: Manu Kallampally, Assistant Public Prosecutor (Senior Grade)
