Kerala High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Trade Union Members Booked For Slapping Post Master, Forcing To Shut Post Office During Hartal

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the offence alleged was a serious one and found it fit not to grant them pre-arrest bail. He observed:

“Compelling a public office to be closed under threat is a serious offence and such conduct cannot be tolerated or permitted on any grounds. Granting anticipatory bail to persons, who used force to close down an office, that too a public office, does not augur well in a State governed by the rule of law. Insulating the alleged perpetrators of such a crime, who took law into their own hands, with an order of pre-arrest bail, would inspire the accused themselves to repeat such offensive conduct. Further, an officer, who worked tirelessly, as part of his obligation and duty to the public, was slapped for having kept the public office open on an alleged protest day.”

The allegation was that the accused persons obstructed the de facto complainant post master from carrying out his official duties, abused and threatened him to close down the post office for keeping it open on a day on which a nation-wide strike was called by trade unions. It is further alleged that the 1^st accused restrained the complainant, slapped him on his cheek and threatened to kill him.

The offences alleged were those under 189(2) [Unlawful assembly], 191(2) [Rioting], 190 [Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object], 115(2) [Voluntarily causing hurt], 126(2) [Wrongful restraint], 132 [Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty], 296(b) [Obscene acts and songs], 351(2) [Criminal intimidation] and 121(1) [Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The Court referred to the decision in Vinod P and Another v. State of Kerala (2019 SCC Online Ker 1012), where it was opined that criminal acts done under the guise of hartal/protest must be strictly dealt with and that the protesters are not empowered to commit any action which can interfere with another's fundamental rights to move freely or to carry on business.

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in James Martin v. State of Kerala [(2004) 2 SCC 203], it was found that there is no right to threaten or cause inconvenience to any person in the name of strike.

Thus, the Court dismissed the bail pleas.

Case No: Bail Appl. No. 9534 of 2025

Case Title: R. Thilakan and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 601

Counsel for the petitioners: Sooraj M. Kartha, Swaran Jose, Vrinda Soman

Counsel for the respondents: Noushad K.A., Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Judgment