Actor Baiju’s plea for pistol rejected

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, R.R. Kamath has disallowed a petition by film star B. Santosh Kumar alias Baiju seeking the return of his licensed pistol which the police confiscated from him after he was named as accused in a case registered at Museum police station (crime number 387/05) in 2005.

The Deputy Director of Prosecution (DDP) V. Radhakrishnan Nair objected Baiju’s petition stating that the “it will be dangerous to allow a man such as the petitioner who is prone to drinking and easily provoked to pull out the weapon (pistol) and threaten someone.” He said “it will be a folly of the worst kind to put a pistol in the hands of such a man.”

The CJM observed that Baiju was alleged to have joined a party at Trivandrum Club where liquor was “rather lavishly served” at around 10.30 p.m. on November 6, 2005. He said Baiju was found to have been armed with one boxing block (knuckle-duster) and pistol, both deadly weapons. He was seen engaged in a heated exchange of words with one Madhu Mohanan Nair, the complainant in the case.

The court observed that Baiju apparently “realised the fact that having used the pistol was a very costly mistake.” He was not able to stop the police from confiscating the weapon from his possession. The fact weighed heavily on his mind that proceeding with the case would result in confiscation of the pistol, which he held very dear.

The CJM said that “Mr. Baiju is seen to have followed the police in investigating the crime so much so that when the police laid the charge sheet against him, the fact that he threatened the complainant brandishing the pistol was seen to have been omitted from the charge sheet.” The investigating officer “obliterated” the fact that Baiju had used the pistol in committing the offences alleged by the complainant so that the film star “was enabled” to get the weapon back.

Baiju was alleged to have been in an inebriated condition at the time. “Yet the fact was seen only suggestively mentioned (in the charge sheet) whereas drunkenness was attributed to the complainant.” There was an attempt on the part of the investigating officer to make it appear that Baiju was not in the habit of using a very dangerous weapon in a drunken state, the CJM said.

The court observed that Baiju “took full advantage of the contents of charge sheet, alleging only an offence under section 325 of the IPC (causing simple hurt).”

It said Baiju settled the case amicably with the complainant in his anxiety to get the pistol back.