Kerala High Court Grants Bail to Four PFI Accused in Murder of BJP Leader Sreenivasan | Prolonged Incarceration and Stay on Trial Justify Override of UAPA Bail Bar Under Article 21
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar ordered the release on bail of four undertrial accused in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and related provisions. The Court set aside the impugned orders of the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, which had earlier rejected their applications for bail. The Division Bench directed that the appellants be released on execution of bond and sureties, subject to stringent conditions, including reporting to police authorities, restrictions on movement, and mandatory surrender of passports. The Bench recorded that the prolonged incarceration of the appellants without the prospect of trial commencing in the near future entitled them to bail despite the statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The appeals arose from rejection orders dated 11 June 2025 in Crl. M. P. Nos. 229/2025 and 230/2025 passed in S.C. No. 2 of 2023 by the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases at Ernakulam. The appellants, arrayed as accused Nos. 22, 23, 24, and 60, were charged along with several others for offences under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and the Arms Act.
The factual background recorded in the judgment notes that the Central Government received intelligence indicating that the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its affiliates had conspired to instigate communal violence, radicalise cadres, and commit terrorist acts. Based on such intelligence, the National Investigation Agency registered a case on 19 September 2022 under the provisions of the IPC and the UAPA, later linking it with Crime No. 318 of 2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, involving the murder of one Sreenivasan, a political activist.
The prosecution alleged that the PFI and its office bearers maintained operational linkages with banned international terrorist organisations, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda, and that they had recruited cadres for terrorist activities, conducted arms training, and carried out violent attacks, including targeted killings. The organisation was declared an “Unlawful Association” on 28 September 2022 under the UAPA. Specific allegations included the formation of wings such as a “Reporters Wing” for surveillance and intelligence gathering, a “Physical and Arms Training Wing,” and “Service Wings/Hit Teams” for executing attacks. The murder of Sreenivasan on 16 April 2022 was alleged to have been executed by cadres acting on such conspiracy.
The final report filed by the NIA charged 59 accused persons, invoking Sections 120B, 302, 153A, and other provisions of the IPC, Sections 13, 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 22C, 23, 38, and 39 of the UAPA, Section 3 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. According to the prosecution, the four appellants before the High Court were members of the “Defence team,” tasked with guarding and aiding the assailants during the attack on Sreenivasan.
The appellants argued before the High Court that they were falsely implicated and had been in custody for extended periods without trial. It was submitted that out of 71 total accused, 49 had already been enlarged on bail, and only 12 remained in custody. The defence contended that the murder was political in nature and not a terrorist act, and that the NIA had deliberately invoked the UAPA to deny bail. They stated the delay in trial proceedings, as the Supreme Court had stayed the framing of charges in May 2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 3658 of 2024. They also pointed to the voluminous nature of the evidence—over 1000 witnesses, nearly 1700 documents, hundreds of material objects, and 10 terabytes of forensic reports—making early completion of trial impossible.
The NIA opposed bail, contending that the appellants were active members of the PFI, had attended conspiracy meetings, conducted reconnaissance, and were armed with weapons at the time of the incident. The prosecution maintained that their role was crucial as part of the “Defence team” and distinguished them from other accused who were granted bail. It was also argued that prolonged incarceration alone was not a sufficient ground for bail under UAPA.
The Division Bench considered the submissions and the legal framework under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which restricts the grant of bail if the court is satisfied that accusations are prima facie true. The Bench, however, referred to precedents of the Supreme Court, including Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb, Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, Athar Parwez v. Union of India, and Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India.
The Court recorded: “It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution.” It further noted: “Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.”
The Division Bench observed that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount. Quoting the Supreme Court, it recorded: “A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed.”
The Court also referred to the Shaheen Welfare Association case, noting: “A pragmatic and constitutionally sensitive approach has to be taken where an undertrial is deprived of personal liberty for an extended period and that there is no reasonable prospect of the trial concluding within a reasonable time frame.” It also recorded that where undertrials were not directly accused of committing terrorist acts but were implicated through conspiracy or related provisions, a lenient view had to be taken.
Applying these principles, the Court considered the charges against each appellant. For Muhammed Bilal (A-22) and Riyasudheen (A-24), both arrested on 16 April 2022, the Court noted they had been in pre-trial detention for over three years and three months. For Ansar K. P. (A-23), arrested on 7 November 2022, detention extended beyond two years and eight months. For Saheer K. V. (A-60), arrested on 16 May 2023, detention was over two years and three months. The Court recorded that in view of the stay on trial proceedings, there was “no foreseeable possibility” of trial commencing or concluding soon, and that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail.
In conclusion, the Division Bench allowed both appeals and set aside the impugned orders of the Special Court. The Court directed that the four appellants be released on bail on executing bonds of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties each to the satisfaction of the Special Court. The Bench authorised the Special Court to impose additional conditions as it deemed fit. The judgment, however, mandated specific conditions:
The Court stated: “If the appellants intend to leave the Revenue District of Ernakulam, they shall obtain prior permission from the Special Court.” It further directed: “If the appellants are in possession of any passport(s), they shall surrender the same before the Special Court forthwith.” The appellants were also required to furnish their current residential addresses to the Investigating Officer and keep them updated. The judgment specified: “The appellants shall each use only one mobile number during the period of bail and shall communicate the said number to the Investigating Officer of the NIA. They shall remain accessible on the said number throughout the duration of bail and shall not, under any circumstances, switch off or discard the device associated with it without prior intimation.”
The Court mandated fortnightly reporting: “The appellants shall report before the Station House Officer of the Police Station having jurisdiction over their place of residence once every fortnight, without fail.” Additionally, the judgment directed: “The appellants shall not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence or threaten any witnesses in any manner. The appellants shall not engage in or associate with any activity that is similar to the offence alleged against them or commit any offence while on bail.” The Court provided that any breach of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail before the Special Court.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri. E. A. Haris, Advocate; Shri. P. Vishnu (Pazhanganat), Advocate; Senior Counsel Shri. K. Parameshwar
For the Respondents: Shri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, Senior Panel Counsel; Shri. Sreenath Sasidharan, Advocate
Case Title: Muhammed Bilal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:61965
Case Number: Crl. Appeal Nos. 1248/2025 & 1253/2025
Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Justice K. V. Jayakumar
