Kerala HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail to Six DYFI Leaders Accused of Assaulting Police at Ernakulam Protest
The Kerala High Court refused anticipatory bail to six DYFI leaders booked for assaulting police officers and damaging property during a protest march against the Kerala government's liquor policy in June 2026.
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dismissed a pre-arrest bail application filed by six leaders of the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) who are accused in Crime No. 617/2026 registered by the Ernakulam Central Police Station. Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, sitting singly, held on 27 July 2026 that the accusation is serious in nature, the investigation is at a preliminary stage, and custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary. The court declined to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), finding that no special case had been made out for the grant of anticipatory bail.
The Protest and the Allegations
According to the prosecution, on 24 June 2026 at around 10:00 am, the six applicants — Shresha N, Nikhil Babu, Amal CS, Renjith AR, Bhagyalakshmi NS, and Bibin Varghese — along with approximately 100 DYFI activists, formed an unlawful assembly and conducted a protest march from Pentamenaka to the Kanayannur Taluk Office in Ernakulam. The march was directed against the Kerala government's liquor policy, and the participants reportedly raised provocative slogans while obstructing both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
At around 11:45 am, police barricaded the procession near Maharaja's College on Park Avenue Road. The applicants allegedly ignored police warnings, overturned the barricades, and attempted to force their way to the Taluk Office. In the process, they are said to have assaulted the Inspector of the Ernakulam Town Police Station and the Sub-Inspector of the Kadavanthra Police Station, causing injuries to both officers. Police lathis and a shield were also damaged. The FIR was registered on 24 June 2026.
The charges drawn are under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 285, 121(1), and 132 read with 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 6 of the Kerala Public Ways (Restriction of Assemblies and Procession) Act, 2011, and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
Arguments Before the Court
Sri K.S. Arun Kumar, counsel for the six applicants, urged that they had been falsely implicated and that no material on record connected them to the alleged crime. The defence position was that the applicants were innocent and entitled to bail.
Smt. Aneeda Beegum, Senior Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala, countered that the incident was the product of intentional criminal conduct. She argued that releasing the applicants on bail at this stage would adversely affect the course of the investigation, and raised the concern that the applicants could influence witnesses or interfere with the inquiry if set at liberty.
The court perused the case diary before proceeding to decide the application.
The Court's Reasoning on Section 482 BNSS
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath restated the settled legal position that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power under Section 482 of the BNSS — the provision governing anticipatory bail under the new criminal procedure code — can be exercised only when a special case is made out, with reasons recorded.
On examining the case diary, the court found that the accusation against the applicants is prima facie very serious and shows a premeditated criminal act on their part. The court observed that specific overt acts had been attributed to each of the applicants individually, and that the police officers involved in the incident had sustained physical injuries.
The court accepted the prosecution's submission that the investigation is at a preliminary stage and that custodial interrogation is necessary. It agreed that the possibility of the applicants influencing witnesses or interfering with the investigation could not be ruled out if they were released. Weighing the gravity of the offence and the stage of investigation together, the court concluded that this was not a fit case for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by Section 482 of the BNSS.
Outcome
Bail Application No. 3960 of 2026 was dismissed by Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath on 27 July 2026. The six DYFI leaders — accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Crime No. 617/2026 — are not entitled to anticipatory bail at this stage. The matter had earlier come before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, which had passed an order dated 13 July 2026 in B.A. No. 1500/2026; the present application before the High Court followed that order.