Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused In CPI(M) Leader Murder Case
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice K. Babu on Tuesday (November 11) granted bail to two individuals accused in the killing of a CPI(M) leader in Pathanamthitta district, allegedly committed on December 2, 2021. The case involves charges under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 452, 506(ii), 294(b), 149 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 20 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, presently pending before the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The Court, while allowing the bail pleas, observed that the continued custody of the accused would impede their ability to prepare an effective defence and directed their release under stringent conditions, also instructing the trial court to expedite the proceedings within six months.
The case stems from the alleged murder of CPI(M) leader Sandeep Kumar in Pathanamthitta district on December 2, 2021. The investigation was carried out by the Pulikeezhu Police Station, which submitted its final report in February 2022, after which the matter proceeded before the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The accused were taken into custody shortly after the incident and were granted bail by the High Court in 2024, considering the prolonged detention and delay in the trial process.
One of the accused was later implicated in a separate crime registered in 2025 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. His failure to appear before the trial court while in custody in the subsequent case led to the cancellation of his bail. The defence argued that the absence was unintentional and resulted from his detention in the other case, further asserting that the cancellation order had not been duly served. The counsel contended that his detention was preventing him from adequately preparing his defence and sought reinstatement of bail.
The prosecution opposed the applications, alleging that the accused had been employing tactics to delay the framing of charges and trial. It was argued that their release could jeopardize the proceedings and affect witness security. Both sides referred to judicial precedents addressing the principles of bail, liberty, and fair trial. The petitions were ultimately considered on the basis of whether continued detention would serve the interests of justice and whether adequate safeguards could ensure the accused’s presence during the trial.
The Court recorded that “there is nothing to show that the involvement of the accused in the crime referred to above had any nexus with any attempt to protract the trial in the present case.” It took note of the petitioner’s grievance that the order cancelling bail was not served on him, referring to his pleadings that “even after the copy has been applied for it has not been received so far.”
Discussing the principles governing bail, the Court stated that bail questions concern “liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process.” It referred to Gudikanti Narasimhulu and recorded that personal liberty suffers lawful eclipse only through procedure established by law.
The Court observed that “there cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail” and that facts and circumstances govern judicial discretion, citing Gurcharan Singh. It further stated that the object of detention is securing appearance at trial and that “bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.”
Quoting Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, the Court noted: “An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody… A presumably innocent person must have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence.”
The Court also referred to Moti Ram, noting that pre-trial detention causes grave consequences, as the accused may lose employment and is prevented from contributing effectively to defence. It recorded the petitioner’s argument that the need to gather resources and legal advice should be a factor in bail, and cited Asha v. State of U.P., noting: “The need of an accused to gather resources to get legal advice and collect evidences will also be a factor for consideration.”
Regarding the risk of absconding, the Court observed: “The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may abscond is not supported by any concrete materials.” It also noted the petitioner’s submission that he would regularly appear and cooperate.
For accused No.1, the Court recorded that since it had recognised the necessity of bail for effective defence in the case of accused No.2, “the petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled to the benefit granted to accused No.2.” This was treated as a change in circumstances sufficient to reconsider his bail plea.
The Court ordered that both bail applications “are allowed as follows: The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. The petitioners shall regularly appear before the trial Court and cooperate with the trial” and that they “shall not maintain any contact with any of the prosecution witnesses” and “shall not threaten or attempt to influence any witnesses.” It stated that if bail conditions are violated, “the jurisdictional Court will be at liberty to cancel the bail, in accordance with law.”
Finally, the Court directed the Additional Sessions Court-I, Pathanamthitta, to “dispose of S.C.No.157/2022, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six months from this date.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Renjith B. Marar, Smt. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Sri. P. Rajkumar, Sri. Keshavraj Nair, Shri. Biju Vigneswar, Shri. Arun Poomulli, Smt. Meera Joppan, Shri. Abhiram S., Smt. Gaadha Suresh, Sri. T.K. Babu, Shri. Viswanath Jayan, Smt. Akhila Radhakrishnan, Shri. Akshay Shibu, Sri. C. Rajendran.
For the Respondents: Sri. C.K. Suresh, Senior Public Prosecutor for Additional Director General of Prosecution.
Case Title: Pramod Prasannan & Jishnu Reghu v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:85673
Case Number: Bail Appl. Nos. 13033 & 13369 of 2025
Bench: Justice K. Babu
