KOCHI:The Kerala High Court on Wednesday censured the investigation team probing the case relating to the assault of a student of the Nehru Academy of Law, Lakkidi,Palakkad. Taking a dig at the probe team for serious lapses in preparing the case diary, the court asked: “What is meant by a case diary?”
The HC made the acrid comments while considering the bail plea of P Krishnadas, chairman of the Nehru Group of Institutions. Queried about the time of recording the statement of complainant Shaheer Shoukath Ali, of Nehru Academy of Law, the investigating officer DySP Francis Shelby drew a blank.
The police failed to cite the reason for arresting the accused and provide details of further probe in the case diary. The court lambasted the police for not mentioning that Krishnadas was charged with a ‘non-bailable offence’ in the arrest information notice handed over to his brother.
Absence of a proper date, page number and the time of recording statement also invited the court’s ire. “Should I swallow everything you say?” the court asked the state government.
The HC also orally observed it noticed many discrepancies in the probe against Krishnadas and other accused in the case. The court asked how Section 365 (Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person) and 384 (extortion) was invoked against the accused. To which, State Attorney K V Sohan submitted there were sufficient materials to prove the offence.
The complainant’s statement said they hired an auto-rickshaw to move Shoukath Ali from Nehru Academy of Law to Pambadi where the office of the chairman is located. And the telephone records of Shoukath ali also revealed he was not in the college when the incident had taken place.
The court observed ‘abduction’ and ‘missing’ were two different things. The abduction part is also not found in the 164 statement. During the hearing, the state government admitted there were lapses on the part of the police while registering the case. They argued there was sufficient material to prove the reason for arrest. The state noted computers at Krishnadas’s office and CCTV visuals in the college need to be examined.
On the state’s contention that releasing the accused on bail would affect the probe as he may destroy evidence in the case, the court observed there was no room for such apprehension. Earlier, while granting anticipatory bail to Krishnadas in the case, the court had made it clear the accused shall not interfere in the day-to-day activities of the Nehru College of Engineering and Research Centre and refrain from removing electronic devices from the college which could be treated as evidence.
In his petition, Krishnadas said the case was an afterthought and had been manipulated by the police officers investigating the case. He said he was not questioned or asked to report before the investigation officer despite complying with the bail conditions.The police were trying to sabotage the bail order passed by the High Court, he alleged.
The court also considered the anticipatory bail plea filed by Sanjith Viswanathan, the suspended PRO of Nehru College.