No Proof Of RSS Link: SC Restores Bail In Shan Murder Case

The Supreme Court on September 22, 2025 set aside the Kerala High Court’s cancellation of bail to five accused in the murder of SDPI leader K S Shan, underscoring that their liberty could not be curtailed on political assumptions or organisational labels. Although the charge-sheet described the men as “activists of a particular political organisation,” the Court focused only on their conduct, making it clear that political description cannot replace legal proof.

The judgment records that the FIR was initially against “unknown persons” and later the police report described the accused as “activists of a particular political organization (not a party to these proceedings).” By framing it in these terms and not naming RSS anywhere in its findings, the Supreme Court made clear that the organisation itself was not on trial and that no conclusive proof of any organisational link was before the Court.

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih stressed that the High Court erred in revoking bail when the Sessions Court had already granted it after nearly a year of custody and without opposition from the prosecution. “Taking back the appellants in custody for no better reason than that the Sessions Court should not have been swayed by omission of the Public Prosecutor to raise any objection to grant of bail should not operate to the appellants’ prejudice, more so when two years have passed in the interregnum,” the Court said.

On the State’s contention that one of the accused, Vishnu, had threatened a witness named Abhiram, the Court relied on Abhiram’s own affidavit before the High Court where he stated: “The police may have for reasons best known to them implicated him in the offence. After preparing the statement, I merely affixed my signature on the paper as shown by them without reading the statement. I was never aware that the petitioner’s name was included.”

Taking this on record, the Supreme Court held, “Suffice it to record on perusal of the above statement that there is much more than what meets the eyes. We are not prepared to accept the contention that the FIR lodged by Abhiram affords ground for cancellation of bail granted to Vishnu.”

The State also drew attention to antecedents of the accused, but the bench categorically rejected this line. “Such antecedents by themselves cannot constitute a ground for denial of bail. In this context, a useful reference may be made to the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan,” the judgment said.

Weighing liberty against the seriousness of the allegations, the Court observed: “We are of the considered opinion that notwithstanding the gravity of the offences alleged against the appellants, the conflicting interests of individual liberty on the one hand and the victim’s rights as well as concerns for community safety on the other could have been better balanced bearing in mind that the appellants had suffered incarceration for nearly a year and thereafter had been on bail for almost two years before the orders granting bail were revoked.”

Reiterating a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, the bench cited Justice V R Krishna Iyer: “The golden rule of bail jurisprudence of bail being the rule and jail an exception cannot be ignored.”

The Court restored bail with strict conditions including a prohibition on entering Alappuzha district except for trial, mandatory attendance at the local police station on alternate days, and directions to fully cooperate with the proceedings. It also directed the State to provide protection to witnesses.

With 141 witnesses to be examined and the trial expected to run long, the Supreme Court reinforced that no political description or assumption can justify denying liberty where evidence does not establish misuse of bail.

Case Title: Abhimanue & Ors vs State of Kerala

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih

Date of Judgment: September 22, 2025