Supreme Court Restores Bail of Five Accused in Kerala Murder Case, Imposes Stringent Conditions

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard appeals against a Kerala High Court order that had set aside the grant of bail to five accused in a 2021 murder case. The appeals arose from separate special leave petitions challenging the High Court’s cancellation of bail, and examined both the maintainability of the State’s revival of cancellation proceedings and whether the High Court was justified in revoking earlier bail orders.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned High Court order and directed that the appellants continue on bail subject to stringent conditions and oversight. The bench rejected the contention that the High Court alone lacked jurisdiction to entertain the State’s application, holding that the High Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC where the petition was filed “under Section 482 r/w 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure”. The Court noted that the Sessions Court had granted bail after prolonged incarceration and on the basis that there was “no opposition from the Public Prosecutor”, but found that the balance between individual liberty and trial integrity required careful calibration. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Background The case arose from FIR No. 621/2021 registered on 19 December 2021 at Mannanchery Police Station, Alappuzha, alleging that unknown persons, led by a political activist, attacked and caused the death of the victim on 18 December 2021. A charge-sheet dated 15 March 2022 named the accused as activists of a political organisation and charged them under Sections 120-B, 109, 115, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 302 IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. After nearly a year in custody, the Sessions Court granted bail in December 2022 on grounds including long incarceration and apparent non-opposition by the Public Prosecutor. The State sought cancellation of bail; an earlier Sessions Judge rejected a cancellation application on 5 April 2024. In May 2024 the High Court, dividing accused into conspirators and those alleged to have committed specific overt acts, set aside bail in respect of five of the accused on the ground that the Sessions Court had granted bail in a "mechanical manner" and had not considered the risk of witness influence or tampering.

On appeal before the Supreme Court, appellants argued that the State’s belated application (more than 18 months after bail) was not maintainable and that no supervening circumstance justified cancellation since they had not absconded, tampered with evidence or breached bail conditions. The State relied on CCTV identification and the criminal antecedents of the accused; it also reported an FIR lodged in July 2025 alleging that one appellant (Vishnu) breached interim protection. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could exercise inherent jurisdiction, recalled established principles distinguishing cancellation and revocation of bail, and emphasised that interference by a superior court was warranted where the order was illegal, perverse or premised on irrelevant material. Weighing liberty against trial integrity, the Court observed that, save for one alleged breach, the appellants had not misused liberty and had suffered long incarceration; it therefore restored bail but imposed specific conditions to safeguard the trial process. Conditions included prohibition on entering Alappuzha district except for trial purposes, periodic police station attendance, cooperation with trial and prohibition on tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses; the trial court could impose further conditions and terminate or modify restrictions after eye-witness evidence was recorded. The appeals were allowed and the impugned order revoking bail was set aside.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.4197-4199 OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NOS.5814-5816 OF 2025) and CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.4200-4201 OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NOS.7641-7642 OF 2025) Case Title: Abhimane etc. etc. v. State of Kerala; Vishnu etc. v. State of Kerala & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Soumya Chakraborty (Senior Counsel) and other learned counsel for appellants For the Respondent(s): Mr. Dinesh (Senior Counsel) for State; Mr. R. Basant (Senior Counsel) for respondent no.2 (victim’s widow)