The Supreme Court recently delivered a landmark judgment, declaring that a person’s criminal history alone cannot be the sole basis for denying bail. This ruling is particularly significant for individuals who have already endured lengthy periods of detention as undertrials. The Apex Court’s decision saw the reinstatement of bail for five alleged Rashtriya Swayam Sevak (RSS) workers who were implicated in the 2021 murder of K.S. Shan, a leader of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) in Kerala.
A bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta specifically overturned a 2024 decision by the Kerala High Court. The High Court had previously revoked the bail initially granted to these five individuals, who are among ten accused in the case.
In 2022, a Sessions Court had initially granted bail, citing the fact that the accused had already spent over a year in custody as undertrials, and notably, the Public Prosecutor had not opposed their release at that time.
However, the Kerala High Court, in its December 2024 ruling, criticized the Sessions Judge for what it perceived as a ‘mechanical’ approach. The High Court highlighted concerns that the lower court had not adequately considered the potential for the accused to influence witnesses or tamper with crucial evidence.
Instead of remanding the matter back to the trial court for a fresh evaluation of bail, the High Court proceeded to cancel the bail directly, specifically citing the criminal records of the five individuals as a contributing factor.
Intriguingly, the Supreme Court opted to uphold the bail, even in the face of state allegations that two of the accused had breached their interim bail conditions by entering the Alappuzha district to reportedly threaten an individual. Defense attorneys countered these claims, asserting that the individual had only returned for trial proceedings and that the alleged victim had denied any threats.
K.S. Shan’s murder in 2021 occurred while he was returning home on his motorcycle. This attack was reportedly a retaliatory act, following the killing of an RSS worker, which was allegedly carried out by SDPI activists.
Justice Datta, in his judgment, emphasized that the High Court should have taken into account the considerable time the accused had already spent in custody—over a year—before the Sessions Court granted them bail in 2022. Furthermore, these individuals had remained out on bail for nearly two years before the High Court’s revocation in 2024.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the primary goal of canceling or revoking bail is to safeguard the integrity of a trial. This measure aims to ensure a fair judicial process and protect public interest by preventing individuals accused of grave crimes, particularly those likely to influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence, from being released.
However, Justice Datta clarified that if the accused do interfere with witnesses or manipulate evidence, courts would be fully justified in ordering their immediate re-arrest and return to custody.
Despite these considerations, the Apex Court affirmed its commitment to the ‘golden rule of bail jurisprudence,’ originally articulated by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer: that ‘bail is the rule, and jail is an exception’.
To ensure the accused do not obstruct the swift progression of the case, Justice Datta issued several specific directives, thereby overturning the High Court’s decision from the previous year.
The Court reasoned that reimprisoning the appellants simply because the Sessions Court was influenced by the public prosecutor’s lack of objection to bail would be unfair and prejudicial, especially given that two years had already elapsed since their initial release.