This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC 2966/2023) filed by the accused, Aneesh, under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of C.C. No. 444/2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Aluva, for offences under IPC Sections 452, 341 and 506(ii). The prosecution alleges that on 01.10.2020 the accused trespassed into the complainant’s office, restrained him wrongfully and threatened him in the context of long-standing enmity. The petitioner argues that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled, supported by Annexure-A3 (affidavit from the de facto complainant). The court had directed the investigating officer to verify the genuineness of the settlement and to report whether the petitioner has any criminal antecedents and whether there is any impediment to terminating the proceedings. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about terminating the proceedings solely on the basis of settlement, but conceded the absence of other transgressions. The High Court, after examining the record and relying on a line of Supreme Court decisions (including State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, among others), laid down the law that Section 482 CrPC quashing can be exercised in private, largely civil, disputes when the parties have settled the entire dispute, and where the offences are not grave or heinous or under special statutes. It also emphasizes considering the accused’s antecedents and conduct. Ultimately, the court held that quashing would advance ends of justice, given the amicable settlement and lack of serious societal impact, and allowed the petition, quashing the Final Report (Annexure-A2) and all further proceedings (CC 444/2020).
This appeal arises from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, which by award dated 28.06.2012 in O.P.(MV) No.447/2009 awarded compensation to the legal representatives of Shamsudeen for death in a road accident on 11-04-2009 at Kuttipala. The appellants, as legal representatives of the deceased, challenged the quantum of compensation, contending the Tribunal failed to adopt the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Prany Sethi and Ors., particularly with regard to loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, and used an undervalued notional monthly income. The Tribunal held the lorry driver rash and negligent and awarded Rs.6,38,000 with various heads; the insurer (3rd respondent) did not file a response, and the 2nd respondent was ex parte. The High Court re-assesses the compensation: fixes monthly income at Rs.7,000, adds 40% for future prospects, deducts 1/4 for personal expenses, and recalculates loss of dependency to Rs.13,23,000; it also awards Rs.2,10,000 for loss of consortium (after adjusting for prior sums), Rs.11,500 for loss of estate and funeral expenses, and deducts Rs.15,000 for prior awards on love/affection and pain/suffering. The total comes to Rs.9,44,000 with 7.5% interest until realization. The insurer is directed to pay within two months of a certified copy. MACA stands allowed accordingly.
R.S.A. No. 515 of 2004 is a Regular Second Appeal before the Kerala High Court concerning a dispute over a claimed right of way along the B schedule. The appellants, Rajan, Nantakkumuri (Nanthakumar) and Prakasam assert a right of way by prescription and also seek a customary easement along a pathway that traverses multiple properties to reach a public road. The respondents, Gangadharan and Moidutty, filed a suit for a prohibitory injunction to restrain trespass and to preserve possession; they also faced a counter claim by the appellants for a right of way and related eastern pathways. The trial court (Munsiff) granted the injunction and dismissed the counter claim; the District Court, Thrissur, on appeal, dismissed the appeal in 2002. In re-examining the issues, the Kerala High Court considers evidentiary materials such as Ext X1 and the commission reports, as well as the testimony of witnesses and the conduct of the parties in relation to the alleged pathway. The judgment highlights that the area has largely been reclaimed from paddy fields, which affects the analysis of prescriptive rights and customary easements. While acknowledging the general rule of 20 years of use for prescription, the court distinguishes earlier authorities on the facts and ultimately holds that the appellants have not established a valid prescriptive or customary easement. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
This appeal arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in O.P. MV No. 484/2005, challenging the compensation awarded for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 24 August 2004. The petitioner, Kuriachan alias Reji, rode a motorcycle KL-07AE/8253 on the Aluva–Munnar Public Road when a tractor (driver-respondent) dragging a drilling machine allegedly detached the shaft, fell on the road, and struck the motorcycle. The respondent contended that the petitioner, while attempting to overtake, swerved left to avoid an oncoming vehicle, thus colliding with the tractor; the police final report, Ext. A5, and scene mahazar, Ext. A3, supported the tractor’s version. The Tribunal, relying on Ext. A3 and Ext. A5, held the petitioner negligent and dismissed the petition. The High Court scrutinized Ext. A5 as prima facie evidence of negligence and found inconsistencies in RW1’s version, noting the tractor’s damage reports did not align with a backside impact. Citing The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal, Kaushnuma Begum, and especially the evolving stance in M.C. Mehta on Rylands v. Fletcher, the court held that the rule may be applied in motor-accident claims and reversed the Tribunal’s finding. The petitioner, after assessment, was awarded Rs. 2,52,800 with 7.5% interest, and liability was saddled on the tractor owner-driver.
The petitioner, Sree Narayana Guru Memorial Educational and Cultural Trust, seeks permission to commence a self-financing 4-year B.Pharm degree course at its Sree Narayana Guru Memorial Pharmacy College, Valamangalam. The petition challenges Ext.P10 by which the Government allegedly rejected the NOC for the 2020-21 academic year; Ext.P7 was the earlier rejection; Ext.P8 was filed for 2021-2022 and, after inaction, prompted WP(C) No. 28062/2020, which directed the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P8 in light of observations and to decide. The petitioner also filed Ext.P11 a review petition, allegedly pending. The petitioner contends that the stipulation in the scheme framed under Regulation 9.2 of the B.Pharm Course Regulations, 2014 requiring NOC from the State Government is unsustainable, relying on a Single Judge’s decision in WP(C) No.15525 of 2018 and connected cases (Westfort Higher Education Trust v State of Kerala). The respondents argue for the primacy of the regulatory framework and the need for NOC as part of the process leading to PCI approval. The Court notes the cited precedents, discusses the regulatory scheme, and ultimately closes the writ petition, indicating the petitioner may pursue the course under applicable law, without granting the requested relief and leaving other rights open for future compliance.
This is a Regular Bail application (B.A. No. 671/2023) filed by Muraleedharan Unni Kakooth Nair before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in O.S. No.114/2022 arising from Customs F.S. No. S14/95/2022 of Nedumbassery Air Customs. The drone of the prosecution is that on 22.08.2022, 18.029 kg of pale yellowish-white powder and lumps, suspected to be narcotics, were detected in checked baggage of the international passenger Muralidharan Unni Kakooth Nair (from Harare via Doha). The substance tested positive for methaqualone and the lab report indicated heroin presence with approximately 72% purity and an estimated value of about Rs. 18 crore. Statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and recovery of cash are cited to allege illegal import/export and inter-state illicit conveyance. The petitioner contends that he is innocent, merely an employee of an employer (Jennifer Griffin) and had complied with orders; he asserts lack of knowledge that the baggage contained contraband and prays for bail while in custody since 22.08.2022. The Special Public Prosecutor for Customs/N.D.P.S. counters that the accused transported a commercial quantity with knowledge of contraband, and was to entrust it to the second accused in New Delhi, thus triggering Section 37 NDPS restrictions. The High Court reiterates the stringent test under Section 37, requiring two conjunctive conditions: reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and that he will not commit further offenses on bail. On evaluation, the court finds no such mitigating grounds and dismisses the bail application, while citing a string of precedents and clarifying it does not render an acquittal. The order ends with the bail application being dismissed.
This appeal (FAO No. 37 of 2019) arises from a challenge to an attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC, dated 14 February 2019, affecting the Hard Disc/CD content of the Malayalam film Muhammadum Albiyum Shathrukalaya Katha. The first respondent-plaintiff alleges loan advances to the appellants for producing the film and secured the debt by a post‑dated cheque for 85 lakh along with a consent deed. The appellants dispute the extent of the loan, contend that the 85 lakh document and consent deed were later manipulated or executed as security for a much smaller sum (approximately 19.5 lakh), and allege coercion in obtaining these instruments. They argue the petition for attachment was premature, that attachment would stifle the film’s release, and that mandatory principles under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 were not observed. The trial court found a prima facie case and that the attachment was warranted to prevent disposal of the hard disc content. On appeal, the Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench, upheld the attachment, agreeing that there was a prima facie chance of decree, and that the incorporeal asset (film content) could be attached when necessary to safeguard the claimant’s interests. The court clarified it did not decide the merits of the suit and indicated that the appellants may seek to lift the attachment with appropriate security under Order XXXVIII Rule 9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
MAT.APPEAL NO. 1263 OF 2015 This appeal arises from Mat.Appeal No.1263 of 2015 challenging an order of the Family Court, Kozhikode, dismissing O.P. No.194 of 2014 for cancellation of release Deed No.1290 of 2011 (S.R.O., Kakkodi) and related custody petitions. The appellant, Muhammed Yasir, contends that the deed releasing his right in a jointly purchased property was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud, and sought cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The sale deed No.1253 of 2011 reflected the property in the names of Yasir and the two respondents; Yasir, while abroad in Qatar, was allegedly induced to sign the release deed on payment of Rs.2 lakhs, believing it would release the second purchaser’s rights in his favour. The respondents counter that the property was purchased with funds provided by the second respondent, that Yasir’s name was included as a purchaser at his insistence, and that the release deed was executed with his knowledge and consent. The Family Court rejected the petitions, and the High Court upheld this view, holding that Yasir, though educated and abroad for long, could not successfully plead non est factum. The decision relies on authorities including Biji Pothen, Gallie v. Lee, and Mathu v. Cherchi, emphasizing the narrow scope of non est factum and the necessity to prove misrepresentation with material content. The appeal ultimately dismisses, affirming the Family Court’s dismissal of both petitions.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 685 OF 2016 This is a criminal revision petition by the accused, K.V. Suresh, challenging his conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act in SC 554/2012 and related proceedings. The prosecution case began with the seizure of 150 packets of arrack (100 ml each) from Nayikkappu Junction on 17.09.2008, leading to the accused’s arrest and the registration of the crime under the Abkari Act. The trial court convicted him under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with a default sentence. The appellate court (Crl.Appeal No.65 of 2015) upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to one year’s simple imprisonment with the same Rs. 1 lakh fine and a further three months’ default imprisonment. The High Court, while admitting the Revision Petition, examined material irregularities highlighted by the petitioner: primarily, Ext.P9 inventory/certification under Section 53A(2) of the Abkari Act was signed by a Judicial Magistrate, not by an Executive Magistrate; the inventory was prepared by PW3, a Preventive Officer, whose authority to register as Excise Inspector was not proven; there was a lack of dated certification; reliance on Kusuma v. State of Kerala, Umesh K v. State of Kerala, and related judgments; and unexplained delays in investigation and filing the final report under Section 50 Abkari Act. The Court held that such illegality in registration and inventory undermines the conviction. Consequently, the Revision Petition was allowed, the conviction and sentence set aside, the petitioner acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., bail cancelled, and the accused set at liberty. The judgment emphasizes that 53A certification must be performed by an Executive Magistrate and that non-compliance or miscertification can vitiate the conviction.
Sruthi, a financially backward nursing student, sought an education loan to continue her four-year B.Sc Nursing course but was repeatedly rejected by a bank. In despair, she consumed pesticide and died on 30.04.2012. Two bank officers—Harikrishnan (Manager) and Jobin Fen (Deputy Manager, Credit)—were charged under Section 306 IPC for abetting suicide, based on Annexure-A final report in Crime No.440/2012. The petitioners approached this Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash proceedings in SC No.1/2013. The court scrutinized whether the allegations prima facie establish a violation of 306 IPC, including the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC and the requirement of instigation, nexus, and proximate causation. It discussed the moral and legal complexities of suicide, citing Mohan v. State (SC 2011), Chitresh Kumar Chopra, and other precedents on suicidability and mens rea. The judge rejected the notion that non-sanction of a loan automatically constitutes instigation, noting the lack of proximal time and direct causal link between the loan rejections and the suicide. The court held that mere words, such as telling the deceased to die in a quarrel, do not amount to instigation under the law without positive, proximate intent. Relying on established principles from Ramesh Kumar, Swamy Prahladdas, Sengar, and Pawan Kumar, the court held that there is no compelling connection to the death. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and all proceedings were quashed.
The petitioner, Sreepathy Institute of Management and Technology, seeks to quash Ext.P3 and Ext.P4, which denied and restricted, respectively, the grant of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for starting diploma courses after AICTE approval for the academic year 2021-22. AICTE had approved new diploma courses (AI, Automation & Robotics, Civil & Environmental Engineering) for 2021-22, and per AICTE’s Approval Process Handbook, an NOC from the State Government is required. The State government, however, had policy-wise refused NOC to private self-financing institutions and restricted NOC to Government-run CAPE institutions. The petitioner contends this policy is arbitrary, violates fundamental rights and is inconsistent with central statutes. The matter involves a complex interplay among AICTE, the State Government, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (the affiliating university), and the Director of Technical Education (DTE). Earlier orders of the Division Bench directed an inspection by the University to determine if the B.Tech students’ interests would be prejudiced by the new diploma courses and whether separate buildings could host both streams. The University reported sharing of infrastructure, leading the DTE to reject the NOC. The learned Judge held that the State policy cannot override central statutes, and that the NOC/approval process must be reconsidered afresh after fresh inspections and a conclusive report from the University, with hearing afforded to the parties. The petition is disposed with directions for fresh consideration consistent with the law and the welfare of students.
B Kesavadas, the Chief Engineer of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), challenged a Board decision rejecting his request for voluntary retirement (VR). He had joined service in 1992 and, due to cardiac issues and a spinal condition, sought VR with effect from 31 July 2021. He submitted medical records (Ext.P1, Ext.P2) and a VR application (Ext.P3) on 23 June 2021, with leave granted for July 2021 (Ext.P5). The VR request was rejected on 21 July 2021 (Ext.P6), citing a vigilance inquiry arising from alleged irregularities at Mavelikkara during 2018–2019 when he was executive engineer, leading to a show-cause notice (Ext.P8) and a pending enquiry. The petitioner contended that forcing him to continue work despite illness violated Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and Rule 56(v) of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR). The State defended the Board’s action, highlighting financial irregularities and the ongoing enquiry (R1(a)). The learned Judge analyzed Rule 56(v) which permits withholding VR where major-penalty proceedings or prosecutions are contemplated, and examined Venugopal v. State of Kerala and Sanjay Jain v. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd. The court held Venugopal inapplicable, recognized that Sanjay Jain’s resignation right is not absolute, and ultimately set aside Ext.P6, directing fresh consideration of Ext.P3 under Rule 56(v) within a month after a personal hearing. The petition is allowed accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4693 OF 2025 Libin, the second accused in Crime No.164/2025 of Punalur Police Station, seeks bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The case registers offences under sections 126(2), 324(4), 296(b), 109(1), 118(1), 115(2) and 351(3) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The prosecution alleges that on 27 January 2025, near Narikkal Junction, the defacto complainant and his brother-in-law were attacked: accused 1 and 3 allegedly pelted stones, damaged car glasses, and the first accused brandished a sword while hurling abusive language; several persons, including the brother-in-law and friends, attempted to intervene and were injured. The defense contends that even if the allegations are accepted, there is no specific overt act attributable to Libin, and his criminal antecedents are not serious; he is prepared to comply with stringent conditions if released. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting a 2012 IPC case against Libin. The court, after evaluating the FIR and statements, found that Libin's overt acts are not as grave as those of co-accused; however, it kept to the broad principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. Relying on Supreme Court precedents—Chidambaram, Siddharth, Kumar, Manish Sisodia, Sushila Aggarwal, and Anzar Azeez—the court grants bail with conditions: appear before IO within two weeks; execute a bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties; cooperate; not leave India; refrain from new offences; and enable recovery if required. These directions are to decide bail only.
Reliance General Insurance Company (appellant) challenges the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palai award in OPMV 65/2011 on two grounds: negligence of the bus driver and the computation of dependency for compensation. The Tribunal held the bus driver negligent at 70%. The insurer contends there is no basis for such negligence and submits that the deceased’s dependents were not all dependents; the 1st claimant testified as husband, while the 2nd and 3rd claimants were the parents. The Tribunal found that only the mother was dependent; the husband and father were not legally dependent. Relying on Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, the court notes standard deductions for personal living expenses and, following Trilok Chandra, acknowledges unit-based deductions though it favours standardised deductions. It also cites 2014(1) KHC 207 (Valsamma and another v. Binu Jose and another) to illustrate remarriage considerations. After re-evaluating dependency, the court holds that the only dependent is the mother; accordingly, the notional income is reduced by one-half for personal expenses, and 70% of the total award will be paid to the mother. The MACA is allowed; no order as to costs.
Manoj K.G., a resident of Mayabavan, sought a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector, Kottayam, to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules for a proposed petroleum outlet on his site, notwithstanding neighbour objections and a reportedly unfavourable report from the 4th respondent (Regional Fire Officer). Ext. P1 is the offer letter; Ext. P2 is the NOC application; Ext. P3 the corrected site sketch. The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent has delayed processing the NOC, and argues that the relevant central rules require the District Authority to assess only compliance with Petroleum Rules, with the central license decision lying with the Central Government. The petitioner relies on Exts. P6–P7 showing similar NOC issuances despite objections and on Exts. P9–P11 judgments of this Court to argue that neighbours’ NOC is not an indispensable prerequisite if the application is otherwise compliant. The respondents counter that the 1st respondent cannot ignore the 4th respondent’s unfavourable report and neighbour objections, and that PCB norms and central licensing procedures must be respected. The Court, citing Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Land Revenue (2007) and Mary Ulahannan v. Union of India (2011), holds that the District Authority’s evaluation must be confined to the Petroleum Rules and central norms, with the ultimate licensing power resting with the Central Government. The writ petition is disposed with directions: Ext. P2 must be considered within three weeks, and the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this judgment for compliance.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4853 OF 2025 This is a bail application under Section 483 BNSS filed by Kiran in Crime No.4/2025 registered by the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging offences under Sections 8(c), r/w 22(b) & 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The contraband allegedly recovered is 5.13 grams of methamphetamine, claimed to be an intermediate quantity. The petitioner has been in custody since 12.02.2025. The applicants contend that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, a well-settled principle reiterated in various Supreme Court and Kerala High Court decisions, and that there is no requirement to keep him in custody given the quantity and the absence of aggravating circumstances; the NDA not invoking Section 37. The prosecution argues that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and is involved in a similar case, and that the nature and gravity of the offence warrant stringent conditions or denial of bail. The court previously declined bail in a prior application (B.A. No. 3042/2025) but allowed liberty to refile after three weeks. On balance, the court gravitates toward bail with stringent conditions, emphasising the overarching principle of bail as a rule and jail as an exception, subject to compliance and possible cancellation if future violations occur.
This is a High Court of Kerala anticipatory bail matter (BAIL APPL. No. 652 of 2023) arising from Crime No. 17/2023 of Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad. The petitioners, accused Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, sought anticipatory bail on the grounds of innocence and delayed registration of the case, arguing that the present FIR is a counterblast to Crime No. 982/2022 and that the allegations are weak. The prosecution alleges that on 07.10.2022 an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons formed with knowledge of the assembly, with intent to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him; the first accused allegedly aimed to chop the complainant’s head with a sword, and others attacked with iron rods and hooks. The FIR in Crime No. 17/2023 was registered belatedly on 05.01.2023. The learned counsel for petitioners contended the charges are baseless and urged grant of anticipatory bail with conditions to cooperate with investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offences and the necessity of custodial interrogation. After considering the materials, the court granted anticipatory bail with conditions: surrender before IO within ten days, de facto custody for interrogation and weapon recovery, production before court on arrest, bond of Rs. 30,000 with two solvent sureties, and strict compliance with non-interference and non-commission of offences during the bail period.
This is a motor accident claims appeal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No. 970/2009 before the MACT, Kottayam, challenges the quantum of compensation awarded for injuries suffered in a road collision on 16.10.2008 involving a KSRTC bus and a Maruti car. The Tribunal held the driver negligent, awarding Rs. 3,18,642 (rounded to Rs. 3,19,000) and directed the insurer to pay. The appellant contends that the compensation is grossly inadequate, particularly the income and disability assessments. The insurer admits the accident and policy but disputes the driver’s negligence. The High Court re-examines the evidence, fixes the notional income of the claimant at Rs. 8,000 per month (citing Ramachandrappa), and determines permanent disability at 20% (instead of 10%), applying the 40% future prospects (Pranay Sethi) and a multiplier of 18 (Sarla Verma). The court revises the heads of compensation: loss of earnings Rs. 48,000; loss of disability Rs. 4,83,840; enhanced pain, loss of amenities, and nourishment, among others, culminating in a total of Rs. 7,30,482. The appeal is allowed in part, directing the insurer to deposit Rs. 7,30,482 with interest at 8% p.a. within two months, and to disburse the amount to the petitioner upon deposit.
Abdunasar, the plaintiff in OS 33/2016 before the Sub Court, Manjeri, challenged Ext.P5, a common order that rejected his review petition (Ext.P3) and the delay-condonation application (Ext.P2) filed in relation to a suit seeking return of Rs.65 lakh. The trial court had dismissed the plaint for non-payment of court fee, prompting Abdunasar to seek relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He argued that demonetization and his health-related issues caused a substantial delay, and that the balance court fee had been deposited with the later applications; therefore, the Court should grant a chance to contest the merits rather than dismissing the suit on technicalities. The respondent contended that the review petition was not maintainable or appropriately pleaded, that Ext.P2 merely sought to condone the delay in paying court fee and not the delay in the review itself, and that an inordinate delay of about 1098 days warranted dismissal. The High Court applied liberal principles from Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr v. Katiji and Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corp., concluding that the ends of justice require a consideration on merits and that a rigid approach would cause prejudice. It allowed the petition, set aside Ext.P5, directed restoration of O.S. 33/2016 with costs, and instructed expeditious disposal of the suit, subject to conditions.
CRL.A. Nos. 228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 These consolidated Criminal Appeals arise under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the denial of bail by the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, in RC-02/2022/NIA/KOC and connected proceedings. The appellants—Nassar (A33), Jamsheer H (A25), Abdul Basith Ali (A27), Mohammed Shefeek K (A31), Ashraf K (A32), Jishad B (A29), Ashraf Moulavi (A30), and Sirajudheen (A51)—were implicated in a large-scale conspiracy linked to the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its affiliates, including offences under IPC, UAPA, Arms Act, and the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, with the murder of Sreenivasan and related acts cited as torquing public order. The High Court of Kerala, in a Division Bench led by Raja Vijayaraghavan and Balakrishnan, reconsiders bail in light of evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence on 43-D(5) UAPA and Article 21 guarantees. The bench notes the voluminous record, stay orders in SLPs, and prolonged pre-trial detention, yet finds no direct, credible evidence of a plan to impose Islamic rule by 2047 or direct involvement in the murder as a terrorist act. Relying on Shaheen Welfare Assn., Athar Parwez, K.A. Najeeb, and related precedents, the court holds that bail is warranted subject to stringent conditions, and accordingly sets aside the impugned denial orders. The appeals are allowed and the accused released on bail with conditions to ensure justice and public safety.
