Controversy over actor Vinayakan’s arrest: Kochi police to examine CCTV footage

Kochi police to examine CCTV footage of incident involving actor Vinayakan; allegations of police misbehaviour & actor's alleged abusive language to be looked into; charges of IPC Section 294 (b) & Kerala Police Act Sections II8 (a) & 117 (e) entail 3-yr imprisonment; police personnel discontented with 'soft treatment' meted out to actor.

The Kochi city police are set to examine the CCTV footage from the Ernakulam Town North station related to the incident in which actor Vinayakan was arrested and released on bail for allegedly creating a ruckus in the station under the influence of alcohol on Tuesday, October 24 night.

The incident had since then triggered a social media storm with posts for and against both the police and the actor. Allegations that the actor was handled with kid gloves by the police despite being abusive on account of his celebrity status and affinity to the ruling Left were being met with counter arguments.

Those supportive of the actor raised his Dalit identity for the alleged police misbehaviour towards him for merely stating his right to know the identity of the woman who had come to his apartment along with a police party earlier in the day.

S. Sasidharan, Deputy Commissioner (Kochi City) said that the CCTV footage from the station has been called for verifying the allegations against both the parties. While the actor is accused of having used abusive language, a video that circulated shortly after the incident also showed a man in plainclothes pushing away the actor.

We will examine all these aspects. If the actor was abusive as alleged then it would attract IPC Section 294 (b) (sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place). The alleged misbehaviour of the police officer would also be looked into, said Mr. Sasidharan.

The actor was booked under the Kerala Police Act 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). Both charges entail imprisonment term of three years each. However, accusations were raised that the actor was let off lightly on bailable charges.

Meanwhile, some police personnel are discontented about the ‘soft treatment’ meted out to the actor. But a police association office bearer said cops are resigned to the reality that in the new age they are being constantly monitored for any slip ups.