Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Five Accused In PFI Leader Shan’s Murder In Kerala

The Supreme Court today granted interim bail to five persons alleged to be workers of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), accused in the murder of Popular Front of India (PFI) leader Shan.

The accused had approached the Apex Court challenging a Kerala High Court's order cancelling the bail earlier granted to him by the Sessions Court two years after the grant of bail. The murder that took place on December 18, 2021, was allegedly in retaliation for the murder of an RSS worker by SDPI workers.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta heard the matter and observed that there was no finding by the Kerala High Court indicating that the accused had misused the concession of bail. While admitting the matter for final hearing, the Court granted interim bail to the accused on some conditions.

Senior Advocate Soumya Chakraborty appeared for the accused.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, appearing for the victim's wife, submitted, “First order (trial court's order) proceeded on a concession made by the learned prosecutor. After that, one more thing which has come in the counter-affidavit, by an order passed on 22nd of January 2025, the Hon'ble High Court has directed that the entire trial should be finished in 10 months’ time. Charges stand fixed. There are about 16 witnesses who are crucial and critical, including the eyewitnesses and witnesses of conspiracy.”

Justice Kant asked, “Mr. Siddharth, the principles of the bail are very clear. Once the bail is granted, unless the Court finds..... Is there any finding by the High Court regarding misuse of concession of the bail?”

Agarwal responded, “The entire premise of that order is a concession made in a case of 302 without having any advertence to the merits of the matter. In fact, the Honourable High Court notices that it shocks the conscience of the court, so the court does not even look at the merits of the matter. Proceeds on a concession made by a learned prosecutor saying that because a man is inside jail for one year, he should be granted bail. The previous Sessions Judge had declined bail to the same person, noticing that he's both a flight risk as well as a risk to the witnesses. None of that is considered, purely on concession.”

Justice Datta said, "Public Prosecutor did not oppose".

Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate P.V. Dinesh clarified, “I am for the State, my Lord.”

Dinesh submitted further, “So far as the concession is concerned, the learned judge asked, ‘Do you need him in custody?’ Normally, my Lord, chargesheet is filed, natural answer is—'we don't need him in custody'. So, that answer has been treated as concession. That's a natural question by learned trial judge—‘Do you need him in custody?’ He said, no, we don't need him in custody. That was not a concession at all, my Lords.”

Agarwal emphasised, “Which is why I am submitting, your Lordships are right. Learned prosecutor has considered the accused as in judicial custody for one year. Further detention in judicial is not necessary. Hence, bail granted. In a murder case, in a case of conspiracy, if this can be the basis of grant of bail.... My submission for your Lordships' consideration is this, we are today in June. The charges stand framed.”

Justice Kant queried again, “No, but the question is that if the court has granted bail... and you don't find any instance or misuse of the concession. Why should the liberty be taken away?”

Agarwal replied, “Because it is only an issue of could the bail have been granted on these considerations... in 'Puran v. Rambilas', your Lordships have said that if extraneous or irrelevant considerations come into the issue of grant of bail, then the courts must look at it. I am beseeching the court to do only one thing. Witnesses have to be examined. You just may keep it on reopening immediately. Please see what is the status of trial which proceeds within the four weeks or six weeks.”

Justice Datta then asked, “When have charges been framed?”

Agarwal replied, “Charge was framed on 17th of May. 31st of May is the next date which is fixed. There is a report which was called for by the Hon'ble High Court from the Learned Sessions Judge, wherein the Learned Sessions Judge has indicated that in 10 months’ time, that is by the end of October, the trial shall be over".

Chakraborty intervened, "The problem is, My Lord, that against an order granting bail, they did not come up immediately, they did not come up for two years".

"When was the bail granted?", Justice Kant asked.

"The bail was granted on 3rd of December, 2022", Chakraborty replied.

"And they challenged this order in 2024?" Justice Kant asked. "What is the explanation?", Justice Kant further asked.

The Court noted in its order that there was no finding of misuse or violation of bail conditions by the accused and directed, “List the matter for final hearing... In the meantime, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail on terms and conditions to be fixed by the learned Trial Court and subject to the condition that they should not stay within the District of Alappuzha.”

The Accused have also been asked to furnish their address to the Police and report to the Police station once a week, and remain present in Court and cooperate with the trial. There is also a condition not to contact witnesses or tamper with evidence.

After the order was passed, Senior Advocate P.V. Dinesh, appearing for the State, tried to address the Court, stating that he was not unmuted on the virtual hearing platform. The Court said that the same order is being passed in both the two appeals that were listed today.

The Supreme Court had earlier issued notice on the petition challenging the Kerala High Court’s cancellation of bail granted to certain accused in the murder case of PFI leader Shan. The Court had observed that the accused had not violated any bail conditions and had questioned the State’s decision to seek cancellation under Section 482 CrPC without opposing the initial bail application.

On December 11, 2024, the Kerala High Court had partially allowed the State’s appeal, setting aside bail for accused numbers 2 to 6, who were alleged to have directly participated in the murder, while upholding bail for others. The High Court found that the Trial Court had not sufficiently reasoned its bail order. The prosecution contended that Shan’s murder was part of a conspiracy involving RSS members.

Cause Title: Abhimanue v. State of Kerala [Dairy No. 61242/2024] & connected case