On Wednesday, a Kerala court discharged two cases under the Unlawful Atrocities (Prevention) Act, against Roopesh, accused of being a Maoist leader and presently in prison in connection with several other ongoing cases. The judgements in the present cases, passed by Palakkad Sessions Judge V Prakash on September 9, state that Kerala Police, in both the now closed cases had shown a “dishonest intention” to detain the accused in jail indefinitely.
Forty-five-year-old Thrissur native Roopesh, reportedly in charge of the Western Ghats zone of the CPI (Maoist), had been jailed ever since he was nabbed by the Tamil Nadu Q Branch police in May 2015. His formal arrest was recorded by the Kerala Police in the two cases, in May 2015 and August 2016 respectively. Both cases have now been discharged.
Roopesh, his wife Shaina, and eight others, were arrested in 2016 for an attack that took place in 2014 at a McDonald’s and a KFC outlet in Palakkad’s Chandranagar.
The case for which Roopesh, along with eight others including his wife Shaina, were arrested in 2015, pertains to the alleged ransacking of a McDonald's outlet and a KFC outlet at Chandranagar of Palakkad district in 2014. According to reports, the persons involved smashed the name boards of the outlets, and left after distributing leaflets which carried messages against US imperialism.
Roopesh and Shaina were both arrested in 2015 together, reportedly after a 4-year-long police hunt. They are alleged to be part of Maoist activities in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala. All the accused in the case, except Roopesh and Shaina — who were the eighth and ninth accused, were already out on bail when the case got discharged now. The Kerala High Court had quashed the UAPA charges in this case against Roopesh last year.
Meanwhile, the other case closed by the court pertains to the alleged incident which happened in 2014 under the Agali police station limits, where Roopesh, along with nine unidentifiable others, were accused of carrying guns and threatening to seek information from a man, who is the complainant. Only Roopesh was arrested in this case.
While quashing both the cases, the court slammed the police stating that there has been a “dishonest intention” to indefinitely detain Roopesh.
In the restaurant attack case, it was four years after the incident that the investigation officers filed the final report. In the Agali case, a report was filed in 2016.
Even then, in both the cases, the court observed that no further investigation was commenced by the officers probing the case till several cases against Roopesh started getting discharged. “The State Police Chief gave direction for conducting further investigation as per order dated December 2019. It is evident that such a direction was given with the dishonest intention to indefinitely detain the applicant in jail,” the court points out.
Though the two cases have been discharged, Roopesh is still jailed as he is accused in more than 20 other UAPA cases.
In both the cases, the court has stated that there is not enough evidence to frame the accused with the said charges and that there are no grounds to take the case forward. The court has also observed that a “person who committed the offences punishable under Sections 10, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA Act cannot be convicted more than once.” It added that out of the 28 cases where Roopesh is charged under the UAPA, including a few that have now been concluded, there are similar charges.
In the Palakkad case, it was alleged that the accused persons including Roopesh, “entered into an agreement to protect and preserve Western Ghats and rivers.” A part of the alleged agreement was to “oust American Multinational Companies” from India.
“Article 51A(b) directs every citizen to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom. Swadeshi movement was one of the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom. Article 51A(5) casts a duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. It is clear that there was no agreement between accused persons to do an illegal act or an act which is not legal by illegal means,” the court observed while saying section 120 B (Punishment for criminal conspiracy) cannot be imposed.
The court also stated that prosecution has not been able to prove in this case that Roopesh and Shaina had taken part in the alleged attack.
In the 2014 Agali case also, though it was alleged that the accused were carrying arms, the court remarked that no such arms were seized.
Meanwhile, recently, the Kerala government reportedly moved the Supreme Court asking it to stop the trial courts from quashing UAPA cases against Roopesh. This, however, is in response to Kerala High Court quashing UAPA charges against him in two other cases last year.
Watch Roopesh's arrest in 2015