In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) petition against the bail granted to 17 members of the Popular Front of India (PFI). These individuals were implicated in the 2022 murder of RSS leader Srinivasan in Palakkad, Kerala. The court upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the high court retains the authority to revoke bail if conditions are breached.
Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh presided over the bench, which pointed out that the high court’s bail order was over a year old. They suggested that the NIA should pursue the matter through the special court if they have valid concerns regarding the breach of bail conditions.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare, representing the NIA, argued for the cancellation of bail, citing violations of the bail terms, including alleged contact with witnesses by the accused. Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court directed the agency to present their evidence to the special court.
The Kerala High Court had initially granted bail on June 25, 2024, under strict conditions, such as the requirement for the accused to share their cellphone numbers and GPS locations with law enforcement. They were also prohibited from leaving Kerala and instructed to keep their communication devices active at all times.
The murder of Srinivasan on April 16, 2022, led to the arrest of 51 individuals, with charges filed against the remaining in two phases during 2022. The investigation revealed potential motives linked to instigating communal violence and radicalizing members to commit terrorist acts, prompting the Centre to assign the NIA to take over the case.
In its December 2022 directive, the Centre highlighted the case’s serious national and international implications, describing it as part of a “larger conspiracy” that necessitated thorough investigation.
The Supreme Court’s decision to not entertain the NIA’s petitions underscores the judicial process’s nuances, leaving room for further legal actions at the lower courts if necessary. The bench also clarified that future applications for bail cancellation should be considered without bias due to their refusal to entertain the plea, ensuring an impartial approach moving forward.
