The court evaluates the right to bail against public interest concerns in serious offenses, emphasizing the necessity of following legal procedures in granting bail.

O R D E R

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026 The applicants are accused Nos.2 and 3 in S.C No.260 of 2021 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 149, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 302, 120B, 201 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act .

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30.08.2020, the accused, who were activists of the Congress party, in pursuance of political animosity, conspired to eliminate two members of a rival political party, namely ‘Midhilaj’ and ‘Haq Muhammed’. In furtherance of the said conspiracy and sharing a common objective as part of an unlawful assembly, accused Nos.1 to 3 intercepted the deceased at Thempammoodu Junction around 11:00 p.m, wrongfully restrained them, and subjected them to verbal abuse. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 to 3 executed the plan devised under the conspiracy. They attacked the victims with dangerous weapons, inflicting fatal injuries that resulted in their death. Thus, the applicants, along with the other accused, are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The accused No.2 was arrested on

01.09.2020 and accused No.3 was arrested on 03.09.2020 and since then they are in judicial custody.

4. The accused No.3 filed BA No.6752/2024 seeking interim bail on the ground that his daughter was getting married on 16/8/2024. During the pendency of the said bail application, accused No.3 filed Crl.M.A.No.1/2025 seeking regular bail. Accused No.2 filed BA No.12314/2025 seeking regular bail.

5. I have heard Sri. John Sebastian Ralph V, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri. C.K.Suresh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

6. The applicants were convicted in another murder case in S.C No.163 of 2010 by the Additional Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram on 26.03.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections

324, 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code . It is submitted that they are undergoing life imprisonment at Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. The appeals preferred by the applicants against the conviction and sentence in the said case are pending before this Court. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are eligible for ordinary leave as per the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules , 2014 (for short, the Prisons Rules) as they have completed two years of imprisonment. Rule 410 of the Prisons Rules mandates that if a convict is to be granted leave, ordinary or emergency, he should be on bail in any other case pending against him. The learned counsel further submits that the applicants seek for bail in these cases for the limited purpose of considering their application for ordinary leave. The learned ADGP strongly opposed the application contending that since the applicants were already convicted in another murder case, they cannot be released on bail. The learned ADGP further submitted that the trial in the above case is already over and if the applicants are released on bail, there will be law and order situation in the locality.

7. The applicants are in custody for the last more than 5 years. The accused No.1 who is in the same footing as that of the applicants, was already released on bail. It is true that the evidence in the case is over. However, since the counter case is stayed by this Court, the trial in the case is not likely to be concluded soon. Even if the applicants are released on bail, since they are already undergoing sentence in S.C No.163 of 2010 and as sentence in that case has not suspended, they cannot be set at liberty. However, I find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the granting of bail in these cases would ena