On a day when several people expressed solidarity with actor Vinayakan, who was arrested by the police on Tuesday for allegedly creating a ruckus at the Ernakulam North police station, the police sought to dismiss the allegation that he was handled with kid gloves.
Among those who accused the police of being soft-handed with the actor was Uma Thomas, MLA, who asked if it was done so because he was a ‘comrade’.
Mr. Vinayakan was arrested by the police on Tuesday evening. Earlier in the day, some police officers from the Ernakulam North station were at his apartment after they received a call, reportedly from the actor, about a dispute between him and his wife. In the evening, however, Mr. Vinayakan went to the police station and apparently demanded to know the identity of some officers who were part of the team that visited his apartment.
In a video that went around on the incident, the actor was seen talking aloud to a plainclothes policeman demanding to know who was the woman who visited his apartment. “She said she was a police official, and I wanted to see her identity card,” Mr. Vinayakan is heard saying in the video. “Didn’t she say she was a police official? Who are you to demand to see her identity card?” the police official is heard shouting back. “I’m a citizen” is his response in the video from the police station that was shown on some television channels.
The actor was arrested and released on bail later in the night. The police said he was under the influence of alcohol.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, S. Sasidharan, Deputy Commissioner (Kochi City), said the actor had been slapped with two serious charges that entailed imprisonment of three years each. The case was registered under Sections II8 (a) (found in a public place, in an intoxicated manner or rioting condition or incapable of looking after himself) and 117 (e) (threatens, obstructs, or assaults a police officer with the manifest intention of preventing such officer from discharging any of his duties).
Mr. Sasidharan justified the non-invocation of non-bailable charge of IPC Section 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty) on the grounds that no criminal force was involved. Besides, it entailed only two years imprisonment compared to the other two charges, he said.
When pointed out that the actor had used abusive language against police officials, the officer said the videos would be examined to verify it. More charges would be added if need be, he said.
Mr. Sasidharan said the actor was indeed under the influence of alcohol, and that blood samples had been collected to verify whether he had abused substance at the time of the incident. The actor, he said, was a troublemaker when drunk and said that there was one such incident in the past.
While legislator Uma Thomas said that such soft-handed approach would destroy the morale of the police, several social media users supported the actor. Many posts pointed out that Vinayakan was within his right to know the identity of the woman who had accompanied the police officials to his apartment. They sought to highlight that police officers were not supposed to discharge their duties without revealing their identity.
