Anticipatory Bail Denied, Mridanga Vision Organizer Told to Surrender in VIP Gallery Mishap
Safiya Malik
On December 31, 2024, the Kerala High Court adjudicated Bail Application filed by Nigoshkumar M., the sole proprietor of Mridanga Vision. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 1294/2024, registered at the Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam. The allegations arose from an incident during "Mridanga Naadam," an event organized by Mridanga Vision on December 29, 2024, at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Kalloor, aiming to set a Guinness World Record for the largest simultaneous Bharatanatyam performance.
The incident involved Thrikkakara MLA Uma Thomas, who fell from a 15-foot-high VIP gallery at the event, reportedly due to inadequate barricading and insufficient passage space. The fall resulted in severe injuries to her lungs, spine, and brain. An FIR was filed by Shalu Vincent, a member of the MLA’s personal staff, alleging negligence by the event organizers, including Mridanga Vision. The FIR cited Sections 125, 125(b) (acts endangering life or safety of others), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Section 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act (penalty for causing grave danger to public safety).
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the initial case registered under bailable offences was later amended to include Section 110 of the BNS, which pertains to attempts to commit culpable homicide and is non-bailable. The petitioner argued: “The subsequent addition of Section 110 creates an apprehension of arrest despite the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate fully with the investigation.” The counsel sought interim bail to prevent unnecessary custodial interrogation.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the application, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations and their implications for public safety. It was submitted: “The negligence alleged against the petitioner has significant public safety implications and demands a thorough investigation. The inclusion of Section 110 of the BNS reflects the seriousness of the matter.”
The Court reviewed the submissions and observed: “After perusing the records produced along with the petition, I am of the view that this is not a fit case in which interim direction of the above nature is to be issued.” However, acknowledging the petitioner’s request, the Court allowed him to surrender voluntarily before the Investigating Officer. The order stated: “The petitioner is permitted to surrender before the Investigating Officer at 2:00 PM on January 2, 2025. Failing compliance, the Investigating Officer is entitled to proceed with the arrest as per law.”
The bail application was disposed of with the direction that the petitioner cooperate with the investigation by surrendering voluntarily. The Court further recorded that the Public Prosecutor did not oppose the petitioner’s request to surrender on the specified date and time.
Case Title: Nigoshkumar M. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Application No. 11343 of 2024
Bench: Justice P. Krishna Kumar
[View/Download order]
