Bail Restored: Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC Order Cancelling Bail of Political Murder Accused
Case Name: Abhimanue & Others v. State of Kerala; Vishnu & Others v. State of Kerala & Another.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1136.
Date of Judgment: 22 September 2025.
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih (DB)
Held: The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s order revoking bail of five accused in a political murder case, holding that bail once granted should not be interfered with unless supervening circumstances arise or the order granting bail is shown to be perverse or illegal. The Court emphasized that the golden rule of bail jurisprudence, that bail is the rule and jail the exception cannot be ignored, particularly where the accused had already been in custody for nearly a year before being released on bail and thereafter enjoyed liberty for almost two years without any significant violation.
Summary: The case arose from FIR No. 621 of 2021 registered at Mannanchery Police Station, Alappuzha, Kerala, alleging that activists of a political organization, due to political enmity, murdered the victim on 18 December 2021. The charge-sheet implicated the appellants as members of the unlawful assembly directly involved in the fatal assault, charging them under Sections 120-B, 109, 115, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 302 of the IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. The trial court granted them bail in December 2022 after they had remained in custody for about a year. The State’s plea for cancellation of bail was initially rejected by the Sessions Judge in April 2024, but on appeal the Kerala High Court in December 2024 cancelled the bail of five accused, holding that the Sessions Court had acted mechanically without considering the seriousness of the allegations or the possibility of witness intimidation.
The accused approached the Supreme Court contending that there had been no violation of bail conditions, that they had neither tampered with evidence nor absconded, and that the State’s belated application was unjustified. The State, supported by the widow of the victim, argued that the High Court’s order was proper in light of the appellants’ criminal antecedents and seriousness of the charges, and also pointed to an alleged violation by one accused, Vishnu, during interim bail.
The Court carefully examined the distinction between cancellation of bail on grounds of subsequent misconduct and revocation of a bail order for being perverse or illegal. It held that the Sessions Court’s omission to address all relevant factors did not, in itself, justify wholesale cancellation of bail after a long lapse of time, especially when no significant supervening circumstances were shown. The solitary allegation of violation by Vishnu, relating to an FIR registered during interim bail, was found unreliable as the complainant had later filed an affidavit disowning the allegation. The Court also noted that mere antecedents cannot by themselves justify denial of bail, relying on Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2024).
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored bail to the appellants subject to stringent conditions. They were prohibited from entering Alappuzha district except for trial, directed to mark attendance at local police stations on alternate days, and restrained from tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or delaying trial. The trial court was empowered to impose further conditions and cancel bail upon breach. The Court thus balanced individual liberty with community interest and directed expeditious conduct of the trial involving 141 witnesses.