Shuhaib Murder Case: Kerala High Court Stays Sessions Court Order Cancelling Bail To All 17 Accused
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (May 26) stayed the order passed by the Additional Sessions Court III, Thalassery cancelling the bail of all the seventeen persons accused of the murder of Youth Congress activist Shuhaib and directed for the issuance of release order. Shuhaib was hacked to death allegedly by CPI(M) workers in Mattanur in Kannur district on February 12, 2018. As per the...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (May 26) stayed the order passed by the Additional Sessions Court III, Thalassery cancelling the bail of all the seventeen persons accused of the murder of Youth Congress activist Shuhaib and directed for the issuance of release order.
Shuhaib was hacked to death allegedly by CPI(M) workers in Mattanur in Kannur district on February 12, 2018. As per the case, there were 29 grievous injuries on him. He died while being taken to the hospital.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the order appears to be ex-facie illegal and granted the stay of the order passed yesterday:
"Since the impugned order appears to be ex facie illegal, it is not necessary to get instructions from the learned Public Prosecutor. Hence, the impugned order, remanding the applicants to judicial custody, is hereby stayed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thalassery is directed to issue release order to release the applicants from judicial custody forthwith. Call for a remark from the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thalassery."
The Court was considering a bail application moved by the accused. It is next posted on June 5.
According to the bail plea, when one of the witnesses was examined, the petitioners/accused requested the trial judge to note the demeanour of the witness in order to prove that the witness was tutored. They contended that the witness had adduced evidence like recording a statement under Section 164 CrPC.
It is stated that the trial court apparently got irritated and openly declared that an order would be passed after lunch and the case was posted to the next working day. However, the demeanor was not recorded and the defence counsel prayed to record the nature of the witness and how he adduced evidence during deposition.
According to the petitioners, the trial court got provoked by the request and she rejected the same, proceeding with the trial. The defence counsel then requested time to challenge the afore order and later, they moved the High Court in Crl.M.C. No. 4292/2026.
The plea further states that the accused filed an application before the Sessions Court, Thalassery to transfer the case to another court of same sessions division and the same is pending. The defence counsel informed the trial court regarding the pendency of these and requested that the cross-examination can be deferred until these are disposed of. However, the trial court directed to proceed with the trial and on May 25, asked the defence counsel to cross examine another witness whose chief examination was completed.
Again, the defence counsel requested to defer cross-examination citing pendency of proceedings before the Sessions Court and the High Court. But, the trial court recorded "no cross". It then cancelled the order granting bail and remanded the accused to judicial custody for no reason, it is stated.
In the trial court's order, it had recorded that both the accused and their counsel have consciously and deliberately chosen not to cross-examine the witness even though sufficient opportunity was granted.
"This Court finds that the conduct of the accused and their counsel is deliberate, obstructive, and intended to protract and derail the trial, particularly in a case pending since 2018...this Court is satisfied that there is active collusion between the accused Nos. 1 to 17 and the non-cooperation of accused...and their counsel is deliberate and in collusion to delay the trial...In view of the principles laid down in State of UP vs. Shambhu Nath Singh...and CBI vs. Mir Usman..., this Court is empowered to take coercive steps to ensure progress of trial. Accordingly, the bail granted to accused Nos. 1 to 17 is hereby cancelled," the trial court had recorded yesterday.
However, the petitioners have contended that they have never misused their freedom while on bail and their bail was cancelled for no legal reason.
"Now the petitioners are undergoing judicial confinement. They have never misused their freedom while they are on bail. Unnecessarily without any legal reasons, the learned sessions judge canceled the bail and remanded the accused in judicial custody...Now the petitioners are undergoing judicial custody and trial is going on while keeping them in judicial custody...The duty of the court is to give confidence to both sides while proceeding with the trial particularly in a case of this nature where the punishment may range up to death penalty. There is an infringement of the freedom granted by the court to the accused and also the learned sessions judge recorded “no cross” in the proceedings and the learned sessions judge proceeded with the trial," states the plea.
Thus, they have approached the High Court seeking bail.
The application is moved by Advocates S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V., Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, T.P. Aravind, Akshara S., Nivedita Rajeev, and Veena Hari.
Case No: Bail Appl. 2930/2026
Case Title: Akash M.V. and Ors. v. State of Kerala