The Kerala High Court has suspended the four-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded to former Director General of Police (DGP) Tomin J Thachankary in a disproportionate assets case, granting him bail subject to conditions, including depositing 75 per cent of the ₹30.84 lakh fine imposed by the trial court.
Justice A Badharudeen passed the order on Thursday while considering Thachankary’s appeal against his conviction by a Vigilance Court. Following the High Court’s decision, the former police officer was released from the Central Prison and Correctional Home at Poojappura in Thiruvananthapuram at 8.30 pm.
A prison official confirmed that the authorities received the High Court’s order around 8 pm and released Thachankary half an hour later.
High Court Finds No Prima Facie Fault With Trial Court’s Findings
While granting relief, the High Court observed that Thachankary had failed to provide the investigating officer with documents and other material explaining the assets allegedly acquired beyond his known sources of income.
Justice Badharudeen noted that the Special Judge’s findings could not be faulted at the preliminary stage. However, considering that the sentence was limited to four years, the Court held that its execution could be suspended in the interest of justice, notwithstanding the state’s objections.
The Court directed Thachankary to deposit 75 per cent of the fine imposed by the Special Court before furnishing a bail bond of ₹5 lakh with two solvent sureties. The bond must be executed within a further period of one week after depositing the amount.
The High Court expressly prohibited his release on bail or the execution of the bail bond until the required portion of the fine was deposited.
It also directed the former DGP not to leave India without prior permission. The Court warned that involvement in any further criminal offence could result in the cancellation of both the sentence suspension order and the bail granted to him.
Former DGP Challenges Conviction Over Alleged Errors in Asset Calculations
Thachankary has challenged the Vigilance Court’s judgment, alleging that the prosecution relied on incorrect financial calculations and that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence.
According to his appeal, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau initially registered the case concerning assets allegedly accumulated between January 1, 2003, and March 1, 2005. The investigation period was subsequently extended to July 4, 2007.
On July 4, 2007, investigators searched several premises and seized documents. After completing the investigation, the agency filed its final report.
The case moved between different Vigilance Courts before reaching the Vigilance Court in Kottayam in 2020.
Thachankary has maintained that the investigators failed to account for several sources of his income and made errors while assessing his assets.
Following his complaint, the state government ordered further investigation. However, the High Court subsequently quashed that direction, holding that the government lacked the authority to order such an investigation.
The Court nevertheless permitted the investigating agency to rely on evidence collected during the additional investigation.
Appeal Alleges Non-Production of Relevant Documents
In his appeal, Thachankary has alleged that documents obtained during the further investigation were not presented before the trial court, despite his application under Rule 19(4) of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice.
He has also referred to his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during which he denied the incriminating circumstances put to him.
According to the appeal, he submitted an additional statement explaining the alleged discrepancies in the financial calculations and the circumstances surrounding what he described as his false implication in the case.
The former DGP has sought to overturn the conviction, contending that the trial court’s conclusions were legally unsustainable because of an incorrect assessment of evidence and reliance on erroneous calculations.
The High Court’s latest order suspends the execution of his sentence subject to the prescribed conditions, while his challenge to the conviction remains pending.
