Kerala Court Denies Bail To 5 Accused Of Attacking ED Officials After Search At Former CM Pinarayi Vijayan's Residence

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tania Mariam Jose rejected the plea filed by the accused who were arrested in the crime registered by the Museum Police Station. The accused have been charged under various provisions of BNS and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on May 27, 2026, after ED officials completed a search operation at the residence of former CM Vijayan.

As the officials were leaving the premises in three taxi vehicles around 2.40 p.m., a crowd of approximately 300 people allegedly surrounded the convoy and attacked the vehicles using stones, bricks, sticks and rods.

The court observed that the alleged victims were officers of a central investigating agency who were attacked while performing official functions and granting bail at this stage will encourage the accused persons and other protesters to commit similar acts in future.

“In this court's view the said attack created a consequence of fear, trauma and vulnerability to the officers of the Enforcement Directorate and also to the driver of the vehicle in which they travelled. The dangerous weapons used by the accused persons were bricks, stones and sticks. Driver of the car suffered injury to his both eyes. This court cannot close eyes towards the mental and physical stress suffered by the victims.” Court noted.

The court emphasised that the investigation remains at an early stage, noting that a test identification parade is yet to be conducted and several accused persons are still to be apprehended.

Holding that there exists a strong prima facie case and that the alleged attack appeared to be an organised political assault rather than a spontaneous altercation, the court concluded that granting bail at this stage would be contrary to the interests of justice.

The prosecution alleged that the mob not only damaged the vehicles but also attacked ED personnel, CRPF personnel and Kerala Police officers who attempted to intervene. The estimated loss to the vehicles has been assessed at ₹3 lakh.

The defence argued that the accused were entitled to bail because the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated to them and their relatives, allegedly violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

However, the court found that the arrest intimation requirements under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS had been substantially complied with. The court noted that arrest notices were served on relatives or friends nominated by the accused and that the accused had legal representation from the time they were produced before the magistrate.

The Court has also relied on the decision in Thirupathi Vilas Podalwar c State of Maharashtra [2025 BHC -NAG 8275], to conclude that since the accused was legally represented through counsel and applied for bail after arrest, it shows that he was was aware about the grounds of arrest.

The defence also contended that the damaged vehicles did not qualify as "public property" under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

The court examined Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and observed that property in the possession or control of government authorities and officials could fall within the ambit of the statute.

“So it is crystal clear from the definition of public property as per the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act that vehicles not only owned by the aforesaid Government but also in the possession of the Government or officers amounts to public property. So the contention of learned defence counsel relating to public property is also not sustainable in the eyes of law.” the Court said.

The court further dismissed the defence claim that Section 121(1) of the BNS, relating to assault on public servants, was inapplicable because the ED officers were allegedly not on duty at the time of the incident. The magistrate held that the officials were returning from an official search operation and were therefore still discharging their official duties.

“This court is of the view that while considering public servants they are in duty at the time of entering the office till their exit from concerned office. In this case the officers of Enforcement Directorate conducted search at the house of leader of opposition and the alleged incident happened on the way of their return to their concerned offices. So it can be presumed that at the time of happening of the incident they were in discharge of their official duties. So contention of learned defence counsel relating to section 121(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is also not sustainable.” Court observed.

The Court noted that while disposing of the case it has to focus on public trust in the judiciary as the incident was witnessed by the public through media channels.

Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed, and the accused will continue in judicial custody pending further investigation.

Case Title: Nidin Raj and Ors. v State of Kerala

Case No: CMP 1/ 2026