Kerala High Court Denies Bail To 3 PFI Members In Sreenivasan Murder Case, Says Custody Not Substantial Compared To Possible Life Sentence

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. dismissed the appeals preferred challenging the Special NIA court's refusal to grant them regular bail.

The Court was of the view that the grounds of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial are not sufficient to grant bail since they have not served substantial part of the sentence likely to imposed in the offences alleged for which there are prima facie materials.

Further noting the establishment of two new special courts for trying NIA offences, the Court observed that there will be speedy trial as well. It also rejected the claim for parity with the other accused granted bail, noting the active role played by the appellants.

Allegations

The prosecution allegation was that the PFI members conspired together with an intention to create terror and communal divide in the society, conducted recce of local Hindu leaders and thereafter, murdered Sreenivasan. Initially, the Kerala Police had charge-sheeted 44 persons for several offences under the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) was directed to take over the investigation by the Central Government.

Ashraf Moulavi is alleged to be the National Leader/Head of the PFI. Moulavi has been in custody since his arrest on 22.09.2022. Abdul Kader and Firoz have been in custody since 24.04.2022 and 26.04.2022.

It is further alleged that PFI used its wings – Reporters Wing, Physical and Arms Training Wing/PE Wing and Service Wing/Hit Teams – to eliminate many of its targets in Kerala. It also alleged that the present murder was also done with the sole intention to create terror and the assailants had no personal enmity against the victim. There is also an allegation against the organization that it recruits vulnerable Muslim youth to commit terrorist acts and to further its objectives of establishing Islamic rule in India – 'India 2047'.

The accused is also alleged to have destructed evidence and knowingly harboured the accused after the commission of the terrorist act. After investigation, final report was filed on 17.03.2023 for the offences under Sections 120B, 34, 109, 115, 118, 119, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 153A, 341, 302, 201, 212, read with Sections 149, 120B, read with Section 302 of IPC, Section 3(a)(b)(d), read with Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, and Section 13, 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 22C, 23, 38 and 39 of the UA (P) Act and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

Appellants' contentions

The appellants raised four main arguments. Firstly, that written grounds of arrest were not supplied to them and therefore, their arrests are illegal as per Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which has to be retrospectively applied in view of the earlier decision - V. Senthil Balaji v. State. Secondly, it was pointed out that prosecution materials do not point to a prima facie case against them. Thirdly, they contended that they have been incarcerated for long periods of time and there was no possibility of the trial concluding soon taking into consideration the long list of accused, witnesses and documentary evidence. Fourthly, they sought parity with the other accused, who have been granted bail.

Prosecution arguments

The prosecution pointed out that the decision in Pankaj Bansal was rendered much after the arrest of the appellants and therefore, the same was not applicable. It was argued that prima facie case is made out against the appellants, including the offence under UAPA. It opposed the parity contention since the appellants held active role in the offence. The prosecution contended that there would be speedy trial since two new exclusive NIA Special Courts have been established in Ernakulam. The other accused in the case had approached the Apex Court and was granted a stay in the framing of charges, which was only vacated recently.

Court's findings

Non-furnishing of written arrest ground not a valid argument in the present case

The Court referred to a catena of decisions and came to the conclusion that non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest was not required:

“non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal…could neither be held to be illegal nor the action of the officer concerned in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with. As such, the action of informing the person arrested about the grounds of his arrest is sufficient compliance of Section 19 of the PML Act as also Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as held in Vijay Madanlal… the Two-Judge Bench in Pankaj Bansal…directed furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing as a matter of course, 'henceforth', meaning thereby from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment, i.e., 03.10.2023”

Prima facie materials available

The Court noted that the prosecution materials prima facie shows the involvement of the appellants in the conspiracy and destruction of evidence. It then referred to various provisions of the UAPA, which punishes actions including conspiracy, abetting, inciting, or knowingly facilitating a terrorist act or preparatory to commission of terrorist act, being part of terrorist group, etc.

Next, the Court examined the charges levelled against the appellants and noted that materials indicated that the accused are active members of PFI, they attended arms training, attended conspiracy meeting, travelled to scene of crime, fled there and destroyed evidence.

“When the materials placed before the court prima facie make out the offence under Chapter IV of the UA (P) Act, the Special Court cannot be found fault with in arriving at a conclusion that there are materials that prima facie show the involvement…in the conspiracy and destruction of evidence. The said finding of the Special Court is neither arbitrary nor illegal, warranting any interference…In such circumstances, the conclusion is irresistible that the proviso to Section 43-D(5) of the UA (P) Act applies…, and they are not entitled to be released on bail,” the Court added.

Parity in bail can be granted after considering roles of each accused

The Court relied on various precedents that held that roles of each accused must be examined when considering a claim for parity in bail. The Court referred to Muhammed Bilal and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., and connected cases, where bail was granted to four accused, who were part of the 'Defence Team' and only watched the offence. It then distinguished the role of the present appellants, who had an active role in the offence.

Prolonged incarceration alone no ground for enlargement on bail

“Considering the prescribed punishment under Section 302 IPC and Section 16(1)(a) of the UA (P) Act, it cannot be contended that the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant… has already exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence, so as to enlarge them on bail on the ground of any delay in the trial…before the Special Court. Therefore, we find absolutely no merits in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants…are entitled to be enlarged on bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India,” the Court observed.

Thus, it dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgments of the Special Court.

Case Nos: Crl.A Nos. 1749 of 2025 and 582 of 2026

Case Titles: Abdul Kader and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. & Ashraf @ Asharaf Moulavi v. Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 495

Counsel for the appellants: E.A. Haris, P.P. Harris, Aagi Johny, Renjith B. Marar

Counsel for the respondents: Sreenath Sasidharan, Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar (Sr.) – Special Public Prosecutor - NIA

Click to Read/Download Judgment in Crl.A No. 1749 of 2025

Click to Read/Download Judgment in Crl.A No. 582 of 2026