As per the prosecution, 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.

The present transfer petition is moved by three accused in the case. According to the prosecution, the accused, allegedly acting pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, attacked Shuhaib and his associates with deadly weapons and explosive substances, resulting in Shuhaib's death and injuries to others. Charges include murder, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy, destruction of evidence, offences under the Explosive Substances Act and the Arms Act.

The petition states 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.

After the trial court rejected the request, the accused challenged the order before the High Court and subsequently sought transfer of the case.

According to the petitioners, the trial court later dismissed an application concerning the recording of evidence and cautioned against filing similar petitions in future.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 accused further allege that, despite their regular appearance before court and without any deliberate attempt to delay proceedings, the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thalassery cancelled the bail bonds of the accused on May 25, 2026 and remanded them to custody, after hearing that a transfer petition had been filed before the Principal Sessions Court.

Notably the High Court had last month stayed the Sessions Court Order cancelling the Bail and the application for Bail before the High Court were closed after receiving an explanation from the trial judge with regard to the order canceling the bail.

The petitioners contend that even though the Sessions Judge reportedly noted certain haste in the conduct of proceedings, the request for transfer was ultimately declined. They maintain that a bona fide apprehension regarding the fairness of the trial continues to persist.

“It is a settled and fundamental principle of administration of justice that justice should not only be done but must also appear to have been done. The petitioners strongly apprehend that they may not receive justice at the hands of the present Presiding Officer.” Petitioners submits

The petitioners further submitted that certain remarks were made by the Presiding Officer in open court concerning the advocates for defence and in general which has substantially contributed to the loss of confidence experienced by both the accused and their counsel.

“....there exists every possibility of further complications and avoidable delay owing to the strained atmosphere that has developed during the course of the proceedings. The petitioners submit that such circumstances are not conducive to a fair and smooth conduct of trial.” the Petitioners submitted.

The accused have thus requested before the Kerala High Court to transfer the case from the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thalassery, to another competent court having jurisdiction.

The case is posted on 15 June for further consideration.

Case Title: Akash M.V and Others v State of Kerala

Case No: Tr.P(Crl.) 38/ 2026

Counsel for Petitioners: S. Rajeev, M.S Aneer, Anilkumar C.R, K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Sarath K.P, Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, T.P Aravind, Maheswar Padickal, Akshara S, Dipa V