Kochi, 27 June (H.S.):The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court's order granting bail to Harish Kumar, the ninth accused in the case relating to the alleged attack on ED officials during a search at the rented residence of Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan. The central agency has also filed a petition before the Sessions Court seeking to implead itself in the case.
The bail order has triggered controversy after allegations surfaced that the State Public Prosecutor, Geena Kumari, failed to oppose Harish Kumar's bail application despite the police submitting a detailed statement opposing his release. Critics have alleged that the prosecutor, who was appointed during the previous LDF government's tenure, did not place the prosecution's objections before the court, enabling the accused to secure bail.
According to the prosecution, Harish Kumar was part of an unlawful assembly of around 300 identifiable persons armed with deadly weapons that gathered outside Pinarayi Vijayan's residence on May 27 while ED officials were conducting searches in connection with the money laundering investigation linked to the CMRL case involving Vijayan's daughter, Veena T.
The ED has alleged that the mob attacked three vehicles carrying ED personnel and CRPF security staff using bricks and iron rods without provocation. The agency has maintained that the violence was part of a pre-planned conspiracy rather than a spontaneous protest. One of the drivers sustained an eye injury in the attack, while the vehicles were extensively damaged.
Investigators informed the court that statements of witnesses had been recorded and that most of the weapons allegedly used in the attack had already been recovered.
In her bail order, Sessions Judge Nazeera S observed that although the stick allegedly used by Harish Kumar had not yet been recovered, the Public Prosecutor had submitted that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the investigation had substantially progressed.
However, the police statement filed by Museum Police Station Circle Inspector R. Prasanth listed 13 reasons for denying bail, including the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses, destroying evidence, absconding, engaging in similar violent acts and hampering the ongoing conspiracy investigation. The court order, however, does not indicate that these objections were advanced during the bail hearing.
A total of 25 persons have been arrayed as accused in the case.
---------------
Hindusthan Samachar / Arun Lakshman
