How Was This Application Entertained?: Supreme Court On Kerala High Court's Order Cancelling Bail Granted To Accused In SDPI Leader Shan Murder Case

The Supreme Court today issued notice in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Kerala High Court's order that allowed the State’s plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to some accused in the murder case of SDPI leader Shan. 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 Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan heard the matter and sought a response from the State while also impleading the wife of the deceased as Respondent No. 2.

Senior Advocate Soumya Chakraborty appeared on behalf of three of the accused whose bail was cancelled by the Kerala High Court. He argued that the accused had not violated any bail conditions, yet the State sought cancellation.

He submitted, "Admittedly, we have not violated any conditions for bail. The State went for cancellation of bail, and the Hon'ble High Court has dealt with this matter as if the other side had come there on appeal against the grant of bail."

Justice Datta asked Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant appearing for the wife of the deceased Shan on caveat, referring to a specific paragraph from the Order of the Trial Court granting bail, whether he had appeared before the High Court.

The Senior Counsel clarified that he was representing the deceased’s wife, who was not a party to the State’s petition before the High Court.

The Senior Counsel further submitted that while the State had sought cancellation of bail, the High Court had primarily examined whether bail had been granted with sufficient reasoning. The State’s contention was that the Trial Court had not recorded any reasons for granting bail. He pointed out that the High Court had distinguished between cancellation of bail and setting aside an order granting bail due to lack of sufficient reason for its grant, highlighting that the State had moved the High Court under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of the CrPC.

"The State filed for cancellation. I did not. The State's application is not for cancellation, there is a difference in 'no reason being recorded'. It's a serious offence. What the High Court has done is, the conspirator's bail has not been cancelled; the actual assailants who went there and chopped and killed this person (deceased)... only political enmity is the motive, and now, I have filed an application for expeditious disposal of the trial, there is an order saying in ten months, the trial has to be finished, that order is passed on 26th January. After this order, they did not surrender, warrant had to be issued twice. 4th January, they were arrested and produced before the Trial Court, now the trial is going on. It is kept today for hearing on framing of charges. There is a High Court's order, on my petition, saying that the Trial has to be finished in 10 months....nothing remains. Let the trial get over. I have the order," the Senior Counsel submitted.

Justice Datta questioned how the State could invoke Section 482 CrPC for cancellation of bail when its prosecutor had not opposed the bail before the trial Court. He observed that courts are already overburdened and remarked, “When the State's Prosecutor does not oppose, it (Trial Court) was required to give a reason? The High Court should have posed this question to the Prosecutor who appeared for the State, that if you don't oppose, where is the question of giving reasons, already the Courts are so burdened. How was this application entertained? It should have been thrown out at the threshold, saying that you had not opposed the prayer for the grant of bail!”

The Court noted that the accused were arrested on December 25, 2021 and the Trial Court allowed the bail application after 1 year on December 24, 2022, and the same was cancelled in December 2024. Justice Datta inquired whether any violation of bail conditions had occurred in the past two years, to which the Senior Counsel for the deceased’s wife conceded that neither she nor the State had alleged any such violation before the High Court.

The Senior Counsel, however, maintained that in serious offences, courts must consider material evidence before granting bail.

In response, Justice Datta questioned why the State had chosen to file the application under Section 482 CrPC, despite not having opposed the bail earlier. He said, "How could the State come up with a Section 482 without having opposed it?"

Senior Counsel submitted, "That is for the State to answer."

Following the arguments, the Court issued notice, returnable in two weeks, and allowed the deceased’s wife to be impleaded as a respondent in the case. The Court impleaded the wife of the deceased as the Respondent No. 2.

Kerala High Court's Order

It is to be noted that on December 11, 2024, the Kerala High Court had partially allowed the State’s appeals challenging bail granted to ten accused in the murder case of SDPI leader Shan, who was killed on December 18, 2021, allegedly due to political enmity.

The Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas had set aside the bail granted to accused numbers 2 to 6 who are accused of directly participating in the murder, while upholding the bail orders for accused numbers 1 and 7 to 10 in S.C. No. 527/2022 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Alappuzha. While granting bail, the Bench had rejected the argument of the accused that the bail application was filed one year after the order was passed by the Trial Court granting bail by a Special Public Prosecutor who was stated to be a counsel for the accused in an alleged retaliatory murder of BJP leader Advocate Ranjith Sreenivasan, which ended in conviction and death sentence for many of the accused.

The prosecution alleged that Shan was murdered as part of a conspiracy involving members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The accused allegedly followed Shan on a vehicle, collided with his scooter, and brutally attacked him with weapons, leading to his death later that evening. The case was registered as Crime No. 621/2021 by the Mannancherry Police Station, invoking provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act.

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