Kerala YouTuber assault: Anticipatory bail for dubbing artist Bhagyalakshmi, two others
KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Tuesday granted anticipatory bail to dubbing artist Bhagyalakshmi and women activists Diya Sana and Sreelakshmi Arakkal, all accused in a case related to trespassing and causing hurt to Vijay P. Nair, a YouTuber in Thiruvananthapuram. The court observed that the prosecution has not made out a case that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is most essential for the purpose of investigation.
While granting bail, Justice Ashok Menon held that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners should be released on bail on the execution of bond for Rs 50,000 each with two solvent sureties, for the like amount each.
The judge observed, "Though I do not approve of vigilantism shown by the petitioners in taking the law into their hands, I also do not feel it necessary to incarcerate them just for the purpose of giving them a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. The gravity of the offence and the possibility of the applicants fleeing from justice are very important criteria for the granting of anticipatory bail.
The petitioners are ladies without any criminal antecedents. The fact that the applicants had, soon after the incident appeared before the police and surrendered the articles which they had allegedly robbed is an indication of the fact that they're willing to co-operate with the investigation and are not likely to flee from justice."
The court observed that custodial interrogation is not necessary since nothing has to be discovered through the applicants under section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Counsel for Vijay P Nair submitted that the petitioners had video graphed the entire incident on their mobile phones. Those phones become essential material of evidence and hence need to be seized by the police. Even if the phones are important materials to be taken into custody, for the purpose of seizing the phones, the applicants need not be detained in custody. The investigating officer could very well invoke the provisions under section 91 Cr.P.C and ask them to produce the mobile phones and they are under obligation to produce it.
They cannot be subjected to custodial interrogation and incarceration merely for the reason that granting them bail would give the wrong message to the public or that it would amount to the encouragement of vigilantism or taking the law into one's own hands.
"There is no doubt that vigilantism has no place in a civilized society. If people are permitted to take the law into their hands and do what they believe to be right and justified, there will be a chaotic situation and would have the effect of undermining the legal and formal institutions of the state and altering the constitutional order. Such extrajudicial acts under the guise of protection of law definitely require to be kept under check, otherwise, it would lead to rising of anarchy, lawlessness and mobocracy," observed the court.