Introduction:

The Kerala High Court on December 31, 2024, addressed the anticipatory bail plea of Nigoshkumar M., the sole proprietor of Mridanga Vision, in connection with an accident involving Thrikkakara MLA Uma Thomas. The mishap occurred during an event organized by Mridanga Vision, aiming to set a Guinness World Record for the most people performing Bharathanatyam simultaneously at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Kalloor, on December 29, 2024. The incident drew widespread attention after the MLA sustained serious injuries, including damage to her lungs, spine, and brain, following a fall from a 15-foot VIP gallery that lacked proper barricading. Alleging negligence, Shalu Vincent, a member of the MLA’s personal staff, lodged an FIR against the organizers, accusing them of endangering lives by failing to ensure adequate safety measures.

Arguments of Both Sides:

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the case, initially registered under bailable offenses, was later escalated with the incorporation of Section 110 of the BNS (Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide), a non-bailable offense. This, they contended, justified the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest and necessitated interim bail. They highlighted the absence of intentional negligence on the part of the organizers and claimed that the mishap was an unfortunate accident. Additionally, the counsel emphasized that the petitioner was willing to cooperate with the investigation and proposed surrendering before the investigating officer. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor opposed the request for interim bail, underscoring the gravity of the incident. The prosecution argued that the organizers’ failure to ensure adequate safety protocols endangered not just the MLA’s life but also public safety at large. Referring to Sections 125, 125(b), 3(5), and 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act, the prosecution stressed that the matter was of significant public interest and required stringent accountability.

Court’s Judgement:

After reviewing the submissions, Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that the records did not warrant issuing an interim bail order. The court acknowledged the Public Prosecutor’s concerns about public safety and the serious nature of the alleged offenses. However, considering the petitioner’s willingness to surrender and the lack of objection from the prosecution regarding this proposal, the court permitted Nigoshkumar M. to surrender before the investigating officer at 2:00 PM on January 2, 2025. The court further clarified that failure to comply would authorize the officer to arrest the petitioner in accordance with the law. While disposing of the bail plea, the court reiterated the seriousness of the charges and left the matter of the petitioner’s custodial interrogation to the discretion of the investigating officer. The court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case, focusing solely on procedural compliance at this stage.