'Antecedents Alone Not Ground To Cancel Bail': Supreme Court Restores Bail To Accused In SDPI Leader Shan Murder Case

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 22) set aside the judgment of the Kerala High Court, which cancelled the bail granted to five persons who are accused of murdering the then Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) State Secretary KS Shan in December 2021.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih granted bail to five accused, who are alleged to be members of the RSS. The crime was alleged to have been carried out of political enmity.

The trial court had granted bail to the five men - Abhimanue, Athul, Sanand, Vishnu and Dhaneesh- in December 2022 after almost a year of custody. In December 2024, the High Court, on the State's appeal, set aside the bail order.

The Supreme Court, noting that the accused had undergone one year of custody, and had been out on bail for nearly two years before the High Court's order, observed that the concerns regarding tampering of evidence and influencing of witnesses could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions.

Regarding the contention of the State that one of the accused, Vishnu, had violated an interim bail condition by attacking another person, the Supreme Court noted that in that case, the victim, one Abhiram, had filed an affidavit in the High Court denying Vishnu's involvement in the crime. Saying that there was "more than what meets the eyes", the Court said that this case was not a ground to cancel Vishnu's bail.

Regarding the State's report that the accused had several criminal antecedents, the Court observed, "Suffice it to say, however, that such antecedents by themselves cannot constitute a ground for denial of bail." Reference was made to the recent judgment in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan which held "depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents."

The judgment, authored by Justice Datta, also stated that Justice Krishna Iyer's doctrine "bail being the rule and jail an exception" cannot be ignored.

The Court also noted that the case has 141 witnesses to be examined. "The trial will obviously take time to conclude. Bearing in mind that the appellants since grant of bail have not been involved in any similar or other offence, we prefer to lean in favour of liberty rather than its curtailment," the bench observed.

While granting them bail, the Court directed that the accused should not enter Alappuzha district (where the crime occurred) except for the purposes of trial. They also have to mark their attendance every other day at the jurisdictional police station of the place where they stay. They can seek modification of this condition after the examination of the alleged eye-witnesses is over.

The Supreme Court further said that the Kerala Police administration may appoint either the investigating officer of the case or another suitable officer to monitor compliance with bail conditions. The officer will be responsible for ensuring that the accused do not influence or intimidate witnesses and for providing protection to witnesses whenever required.

The State was also directed to cooperate with the trial by ensuring the presence of all the private and official witnesses on the dates fixed by the trial court for recording evidence. The Court also urged the trial court to expedite the trial.

For Appelants: Senior Advocate Soumya Chakraborty

For State of Kerala : Senior Advocate PV Dinesh

For the wife of the deceased: Senior Advocate Ragenth Basant

Case : Abhimanue v. State of Kerala

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 929

Click here to read the order