The Kerala High Court today has 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 Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas 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 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 Court held, "In this context, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners regarding the delay in filing the application for cancellation of bail ought to be considered. It is true that after the grant of bail, one year had elapsed before the prosecution filed the application for cancellation. The Special Public Prosecutor who filed the application for cancellation of bail is stated to be a counsel for the accused in an alleged consequential murder which ended in conviction and death sentence for many of the accused. Though the aforesaid contention was impressive at first blush, the same is not a reason to ignore the perversity in the impugned order. Merely because the application was filed after a period of 12 months cannot efface the perversity in the impugned orders granting bail to accused 2 to 6."

Senior Advocates B. Raman Pillai and Sasthamangalam S. Ajith Kumar and Advocate S. Rajeev appeared for the accused while Public Prosecutor Naushad KA appeared for the Prosecution.

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.

The Court examined the trial court’s orders granting bail, identifying deficiencies in the reasoning for accused 2 to 6. The Court noted that:

1. Accused 2 to 6: These individuals allegedly played a direct role in Shan's murder by waiting in a vehicle armed with weapons and attacking the deceased after causing a collision. Despite an earlier rejection of their bail applications due to apprehensions of witness tampering and evidence tampering, the trial court subsequently granted bail without addressing these concerns or citing changed circumstances.

2. Accused 1 and 7 to 10: The bail orders for these individuals were deemed to have been made with independent reasoning and due application of mind. The seventh to tenth accused were primarily implicated as conspirators, while the first accused faced allegations of being a primary conspirator.

The Court highlighted that granting bail in serious cases like murder requires a judicious application of mind and a thorough assessment of factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of charges, and potential risks of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

"A reading of the orders granting bail to accused 1 to 6 reveals that the two grounds on which the learned Sessions Judge granted bail were that the accused had been in custody for about one year and that the learned Public Prosecutor did not oppose the application. The first accused is roped in as the conspirator while accused 2 to 6 are alleged to be the persons who had actually committed the ghastly murder", the Court observed.

The Court also addressed the delay in filing petitions to cancel bail, noting that the delay, while significant, does not absolve the trial court’s orders of their apparent perversity. The Bench quashed the bail orders for accused 2 to 6. Furthermore, it allowed the State's petitions for these accused while dismissing the petitions against accused 1 and 7 to 10.

The Court clarified that accused 2 to 6 could file fresh bail applications, which would be considered on their merits without influence from the present order.

Cause Title: State of Kerala v. Rajendra Prasad@ Andi Prasad & connected matters [2024:KER:93644]

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Bechu Kurian ThomasKerala High Court

Sukriti Mishra