How did Manjeshwar election bribery case against Surendran crumble in court

Kasaragod: Sessions Court Judge Sanu S Panicker on Saturday discharged BJP State President K Surendran and five other party leaders in the Manjeshwar election bribery case citing insufficient grounds to proceed with the trial.

Surendran's advocates said they moved a discharge petition under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in September 2023, highlighting the procedural lapses right from the registration of the FIR to the investigation and shaky evidence submitted by the prosecution. "The court accepted our argument and discharged Surendran and others even before framing the charges," said Adv K Shreekanth, who is also BJP's state secretary.

But discharge does not imply they are declared innocent, said lawyers. "It only means that the judge did not find enough evidence to frame charges and proceed with the trial now. I can only say that Surendran is safe for now," said an advocate in his team.

After the judgment, Leader of Opposition V D Satheesan took a dig at the government by wondering what the courts can do when the prosecution and the defendants are the same! "Didn't Surendran get a safe exit in the Kodakara hawala case too," Satheesan said in Kasaragod, referring to the highway robbery of Rs 25 lakh from a car at Kodaraka near Thrissur on April April 3, 2021. The complainant, Shamjeer Shamsudheen of Kozhikode, told police that he got the money from RSS worker Dharmarajan, who in turn got the money from Sunil Naik, former State treasurer of the Bharatiya Janatha Yuva Morcha (BJYM).

It was alleged that the unaccounted-for money belonged to the BJP and was brought to Kerala from Karnataka to influence the 2021 Assembly election held on April 6. Kodakara police named BJP leaders, including Surendran, as witnesses in the case, not accused.

Naik, a confidant of Surendran, was also an accused in the Manjeshwar election bribery case. The other accused were BJP state committee member and lawyer K Balakrishna Shetty, BJP district secretary Manikanda Rai, BJP's Manjeshwar constituency secretary Suresha Y, and party worker Logesh Londa.

The run-up to the Manjeshwar election in 2021 was sensational after K Sundara, the Dalit candidate fielded by Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), went incommunicado on March 20, a Saturday, two days before the last date to withdraw nomination papers. On March 21, BSP District Secretary Vijayakumar B filed a missing person complaint with Badiadka police but an FIR was not registered because Sundara had replied to the phone call made by the Station House Officer.

On March 22, Sundara turned up at the Collectorate and pulled out of the election. The UDF and the LDF cried foul and alleged that Sundara was coerced into withdrawing from the election. But Sundara stuck to the stance that he pulled out of his own will.

Sundara's perception value had skyrocketed after the 2016 Assembly election when he garnered 467 votes in Manjeshwar and Surendran lost to Indian Union Muslim League's PB Abdul Razak by 89 votes. Several BJP leaders blamed Sundara for the defeat and believed he might have received some BJP votes because of the similarity in names.

On March 21, when Sundara was not accessible to his party leaders, the former Yuva Morcha leader Naik posted on Facebook four photographs of him posing with Sundara and his mother from the candidate's house at Vaninagar in Kasaragod's Enmakaje panchayat.

Naik wrote: "In 2016, Sundara contested as an independent candidate. This time, Sundara, who is also a Yakshagana artiste, decided to withdraw his nomination for Surendran because he did not want to hamper the chances of the BJP leader who had valiantly led the struggle to protect the customs of Sabarimala. Last time, Sundara had got 467 votes, and Surendran had lost by 89 votes".

When this reporter asked Naik about the post, he said he had posted it after Sundara withdrew his nomination. To be sure, March 21 was a Sunday, and Sundara withdrew his nomination papers on the last date on March 22.

The election results were out on May 2, and BJP's Surendran lost to IUML's AKM Ashraf by 745 votes.

On June 5, 2021, Sundara alleged for the first time that he was kidnapped and bribed with Rs 2.5 lakh and a smartphone by Naik to pull out of the election. On June 6, LDF candidate in Manjeshwar VV Rameshan filed a complaint of election bribery against Surendran with District Police Chief PB Rajeev. The officer advised Rameshan, a CPM fund-raiser, to get a court order for the police to register an FIR.

Based on the direction of the Kasaragod Judicial First Class Magistrate Court—II, Badiadka Police registered an FIR against Surendran and five others for election bribery under Section 171 B of the IPC on June 7, 2021.

The Crime Branch took over the case, and exactly a year later, on June 7, 2022, it submitted an interim report invoking the stringent Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Surendran and others. Section 3 (1) (l) (B) of the Act deals with forcing or intimidating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community to withdraw from an election.

The police also charged the accused with criminal intimidation (Section 506 (1) of the IPC), wrongful confinement (Section 342 of the IPC), and causing the disappearance of evidence (Section 201 of the IPC).

'Flawed procedure'
When the case came up before the Sessions Court for framing charges against Surendran, the defence counsels filed a discharge petition citing lack of evidence and procedural flaws.

The original crime, registered by Badiadka Police on June 7, 2021, was election bribery under Section 171B of the IPC, which carries a punishment of up to one year. According to Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), courts cannot take cognisance of offences with a maximum punishment of one year if the charge sheet or interim report is filed after one year. "We argued that the one-year limitation period starts from the date of the offence (March 22, 2021) or the knowledge of the offence (June 6, 2021)," said Adv Hari PV, who represented Surendran and the five BJP leaders. To be sure, police launched a preliminary inquiry on June 6, when Rameshan filed the complaint with the District Police Chief.

Adv Hari also argued that the magistrate court's direction to register an FIR was flawed because there was no proper petition for it. "Rameshan's complaint filed before the District Police Chief was presented as the complainant's petition," he said.

The defence counsels, Hari and Shreekanth, also submitted a statement of Sundara given to Badiadka Assistant Sub-Inspector after he withdrew his nomination papers on March 22. "We got the statement by filing an RTI. Sundara told the police that day that he pulled out of the election on his own volition," said Adv Hari.

Adv Shreekanth said that crimes registered under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act should be investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) of the Special Mobile Squad (SMS). The government has notified SMS as a specially designated police station to investigate cases registered under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (PoA) Act. "But this case was investigated by the Crime Branch DySP," he said.

The charge of kidnapping would also not stand because Sundara was accessible on the phone when the Badiadka SHO called.

On the bribery charge, Sundara told police that came to know of Rs 2.5 lakh when his mother gave him the money when he reached home after withdrawing the nomination papers, said Adv Shreekanth. "If it was bribe money, he would have known the existence of the money before withdrawing the nomination papers," he said.

The two counsels of the BJP leaders said that the court admitted their discharge petition based on their arguments and review of the prosecution's evidence.

The Leader of the Opposition described the case as the latest example of CPM-BJP nexus. "What happened to the Karuvannur investigation? Where has the SFIO probe gone?" he said.

As part of the CPM-BJP alliance, the RSS is implementing what it wants to say about Kerala through the Chief Minister, said Satheesan.