A judge has ruled that a student charged with the attempted abduction of a young boy from a Dublin apartment building should be named.

Visak Rajesh Leela, 25, who is originally from India, was arrested following a party on Saturday and was refused bail on Wednesday.

He was allegedly seen walking out with the five-year-old "under his arm". Judge Alan Mitchell heard a jury would have to decide if "it was extremely misguided, foolish horseplay by a drunk man or something more sinister".

"We are absolutely adamant that it was the former", defence solicitor Michael Kelleher told Cloverhill District Court.

Mr Leela, a postgraduate student who has lived in south Dublin for ten months, made no bail application at Dublin District Court on Monday. At that stage, another judge had ordered the media not to name him after gardaí cited the "sensitivity" of the case "in the current climate".

However, when the case resumed at Cloverhill District Court on Wednesday, Judge Mitchell lifted the restrictions preventing the accused being named in the press earlier in the week.

John Freeman, counsel for various news outlets, including the Irish Examiner, submitted legal authorities and argued the order went against the media's rights, and he pointed out the Children's Act already protected the anonymity of child witnesses in the case.

State solicitor Niamh McKernan informed the judge the only concern was about the children being identified, but the defendant could be named "like in any other case".

Detective Sergeant Basil Grimes explained the initial Garda application on Monday was based on a concern the injured party would be inadvertently identified. However, he added: "We have received all the information and that is not the case."

Judge Mitchell noted the accused did not live near the apartment block and had no connection to that area. He held the media could name him but must exercise caution and not identify any children involved in the case. 

Following exchanges with Mr Kelleher, he ordered Mr Leela's specific address not be reported due to the current climate, "fuelled by social media".

The Incident

Objecting to bail, Detective Sergeant Grime alleged the accused was at the building and interacted with the young boy and his older sister, aged 10, at the door. The defendant followed them in and emerged with the boy under his arm, and there was CCTV evidence.

The girl followed them, and they returned to the outside of the door. The children went inside, and the accused left.

Mr Leela, who appeared via video link, did not address the court or need an interpreter.

His reply to the charge earlier was: "I was not taking the child anywhere. I'm not a person like that. I do not have any intention with a child. I do not have any bad or unwanted intentions with a child."

The court heard gardaí would recommend to the DPP that the case go to the circuit court, where the offence can attract a maximum seven-year sentence.

Bail Refused

The bail objection was rooted in fears the accused had no ties to the jurisdiction and would evade justice if released on bail.

Defence solicitor Michael Kelleher said his client was applying for bail. Recently, he contended, there had been a "lazy presumption" that foreigners were flight risks.

He said his client was studying in Ireland, had no warrant history, and hoped to extend his visa so he could work here after his course.

The court heard he was intoxicated and unfit to be interviewed for several hours. However, he handed over passwords for gardaí to access his devices to check them, and he was adamant there was "no sinister intent in all of this".

The solicitor was concerned about safety issues from publishing his client's address, and he referred to public order incidents outside the Taoiseach's home.

Mr Kelleher also submitted people accused of other offences that carry lengthier sentences are frequently granted bail.

However, Judge Mitchell held he was a flight risk, refused bail and remanded Mr Leela in continuing custody to appear again on October 2, pending directions from the DPP.

Social Media and Reporting Restrictions

The judge's decision to lift the reporting restrictions, while also protecting the address of the accused, highlights the complex interplay between media freedom, public safety, and the right to a fair trial. The judge recognized the potential for harm from the publication of Mr Leela's address, especially in the current climate of heightened social media activity. This decision reflects the delicate balance that courts must strike in protecting the rights of both the accused and the public.