The Kerala High Court has raised concerns over the lack of police action against a man accused of desecrating a Thulasithara, a sacred structure in Hindu tradition, while granting bail to another individual accused of sharing a video of the incident on social media.
During the hearing, the Court noted that while the police had arrested 32-year-old Sreeraj for allegedly sharing the video, no case had been registered against Abdul Hakkim, the man who allegedly committed the offensive act.
Court Questions Mental Health Claim
Sreeraj’s counsel argued that he had not committed any wrongdoing and pointed out that no legal action was taken against Hakkim, who allegedly placed hair from his private parts on the Thulasithara. The police justified their inaction by stating that Hakkim was a mental patient.
However, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan questioned this claim, highlighting that Hakkim was the owner of a hotel in Guruvayoor and even held a driver’s license.
“From the facts, it is not clear whether he is a mental patient. Even if he is, how is he allowed to continue as the licensee of a hotel and drive a vehicle? This must be investigated,” the Court observed.
Police Should Take Action, Says Court
The Court strongly criticized the lack of police action against Hakkim, stating that his alleged actions would deeply hurt religious sentiments.
“Thulasithara is a sacred place in Hindu religion. In the video, it can be seen that Abdul Hakkim plucked hairs from his private parts and placed them in the Thulasithara. This act will undoubtedly infringe upon the religious sentiments of Hindus. Yet, no case has been registered against him,” the judge remarked.
The Court further questioned why Sreeraj was arrested while Hakkim remained free, despite being the one who allegedly carried out the offensive act.
Charges Against Sreeraj
Sreeraj was booked under multiple sections, including:
- Section 192 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause a riot.
- Section 196(1)(a) of the BNS – Promoting enmity between different groups and disturbing communal harmony.
- Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act – Penalty for causing nuisance and violating public order.
The Public Prosecutor opposed Sreeraj’s bail, arguing that he had a criminal record with three previous cases under Section 153A of the IPC (promoting enmity between groups). However, Sreeraj’s counsel contended that he had merely shared a widely circulated video and was being unfairly targeted.
Bail Granted with Conditions
Despite the prosecution’s objections, the Court granted bail to Sreeraj under strict conditions, including:
- Furnishing a ₹50,000 bond with two solvent sureties.
- Cooperating with the investigation.
- Refraining from committing similar offenses in the future.
Sreeraj was represented by a team of advocates, while Senior Public Prosecutor Hrithwik C.S. appeared for the state.
This case has sparked discussions on freedom of expression, religious sentiments, and police impartiality, as the Court’s remarks highlight potential bias in the handling of the incident.
