The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling on bail jurisprudence, has set aside a Kerala High Court judgment that had cancelled the bail granted to five men accused in a political murder case. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih held that the accused should not be prejudiced by the Public Prosecutor’s failure to object to their bail initially and restored their liberty, albeit with stringent new conditions to ensure a fair trial.
The apex court was hearing a set of appeals against the High Court’s order dated December 11, 2024, which had revoked the bail of Abhimanue (A-3), Vishnu (A-2), Sanand (A-4), Athul (A-5), and Dhaneesh (A-6). The High Court had found that the Sessions Court granted them bail “in a mechanical manner.” Reversing this, the Supreme Court balanced the interests of individual liberty with societal safety, emphasizing the principle of ‘bail being the rule and jail an exception.’
Background of the Case
The case originates from FIR No. 621/2021 registered at PS Mannanchery, District Alappuzha, on December 19, 2021, following the murder of a political activist a day earlier. The police charge-sheet, filed on March 15, 2022, alleged that the accused, activists of a rival political organization, murdered the victim due to political enmity.
According to the prosecution, on December 18, 2021, Accused 2 to 6 formed an unlawful assembly, pursued the victim in a vehicle, collided with his scooter, and brutally attacked him when he fell. The victim later succumbed to his injuries. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 120-B, 109, 115, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959.
After nearly a year in custody, the appellants were granted bail by the trial court in December 2022. An application by the State to cancel their bail was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on April 5, 2024. The State then successfully challenged the grant of bail before the Kerala High Court, which revoked the orders for the five appellants, whom it categorized as the “actual assailants,” leading to the present appeals in the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, senior counsel for the appellants, argued that the High Court was unjustified in setting aside bail orders more than 18 months after they were granted, especially since the appellants had not violated any bail conditions. He also challenged the maintainability of the State’s application before the High Court, contending that the proper remedy was a revision petition against the Sessions Judge’s refusal to cancel bail.
Representing the State, senior counsel Mr. Dinesh supported the High Court’s order, submitting that the accused were identified from CCTV footage. The State’s status report also alleged that one of the appellants, Vishnu (A-2), had violated an interim bail condition by entering Alappuzha district and being involved in another criminal case (FIR No. 1006/2025).
Mr. R. Basant, senior counsel for the victim’s widow, argued that the Sessions Court had passed a non-speaking order without considering the severity of the crime. He submitted that the High Court had rightly distinguished the appellants as the actual assailants from the conspirators and noted their criminal antecedents. He also pointed out that the Sessions Court had heard only the Public Prosecutor and not the Special Public Prosecutor appointed for the case.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court first dismissed the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the State’s plea, noting that the petition before the High Court was filed under “Section 482 r/w 439 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure,” which allowed the High Court to exercise its inherent powers.
The bench, led by Justice Datta, distinguished between the cancellation of bail due to a supervening circumstance (like a violation of conditions) and the revocation of a bail order found to be “perverse or illegal.” Citing its previous decision in P v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court reiterated, “…an order granting bail can only be set aside on grounds of being illegal or contrary to law by the court superior to the court which granted the bail and not by the same court.”
The judgment observed that while the High Court correctly identified the Sessions Court’s error in granting bail based solely on the custody period and ‘no opposition from the prosecution,’ the more appropriate course would have been to remand the matter for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court noted, “…it would have been just and proper for the High Court to direct the Sessions Court to consider all the relevant factors and decide afresh the application of the appellants for bail.”
The Court found that taking the appellants back into custody after they had been on bail for nearly two years was not justified. It stated, “Taking back the appellants in custody for no better reason than that the Sessions Court should not have been swayed by omission of the Public Prosecutor to raise any objection to grant of bail should not operate to the appellants’ prejudice…”
On the issue of criminal antecedents, the Court, referring to its decision in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, held that they “by themselves cannot constitute a ground for denial of bail.” Regarding the new FIR against Vishnu, the Court found the complainant’s subsequent affidavit, which denied Vishnu’s involvement, made the situation suspect, stating, “there is much more than what meets the eyes.”
Decision and Stringent Conditions
Finding that the appellants have not been involved in any similar offence since their release, the Court chose to “lean in favour of liberty rather than its curtailment.” While setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court imposed a fresh set of stringent conditions to “obviate any possibility of tampering with evidence and intimidation and/or influencing of the witnesses.”
The conditions for the appellants’ continued bail are: a. They shall not enter the limits of district Alappuzha, except for trial purposes. b. They must inform the trial court of their temporary residence. c. They shall mark their presence at the jurisdictional police station every alternative day. d. They shall not procrastinate the trial and must fully cooperate. e. They shall not tamper with evidence or influence/intimidate witnesses. f. They shall not seek deferment of the cross-examination of any eyewitness. g. After all eyewitness evidence is recorded, they are at liberty to seek modification of the condition barring entry into Alappuzha. h. They shall furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The Supreme Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and encouraged the State police to provide protection to witnesses. The appeals were accordingly allowed.
