Kerala High Court Denies Bail to PFI Members in RSS Leader Sreenivasan Murder Case

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Abdul Kader and Firoz, the 19th and 20th accused in the murder of RSS leader Sreenivasan, rejecting their plea for regular bail. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. upheld the Special Court's order, finding that the proviso to Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 applies to the appellants, and they are not entitled to be released on bail.

Case Background

The case originates from Crime No.318/2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, registered on the allegation that Popular Front of India (PFI) leaders and members conspired to create terror and communal divide. They allegedly conducted intense reconnaissance of several Hindu leaders through a 'Reporter Wing' and subsequently murdered Sreenivasan on April 16, 2022 at Palakkad. The National Investigation Agency took over the investigation, filing a charge sheet against 71 accused for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the UA(P) Act, including Sections 16 (terrorist act), 18 (conspiracy), and 20 (membership of terrorist gang).

Abdul Kader, alleged to be the Area President of PFI for Kongad, was arrested on April 24, 2022, while Firoz, an active PFI cadre, was arrested on April 26, 2022. Both have been in custody for over four years. Their bail application before the Special Court was dismissed on September 9, 2025, prompting the present appeal.

Arguments Presented

The appellants' counsel argued that no written grounds of arrest were served on them, rendering the arrest illegal in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India . They further contended that the materials did not make out a prima facie case under the UA(P) Act, and that several co-accused with similar or greater roles had been granted bail by the High Court in Muhammed Bilal v. Union of India . With 71 accused, over 1,000 witnesses, and voluminous evidence, the trial was unlikely to commence or conclude soon, they argued.

The NIA's Special Public Prosecutor countered that the Pankaj Bansal ruling applied only prospectively from October 3, 2023, and that the arrests occurred earlier. The prosecution presented substantial prima facie material, including CCTV footage showing the appellants at the scene of conspiracy and the crime, recovery of blood-stained clothes with the victim's DNA, and evidence of destruction of evidence. The NIA emphasised that the appellants are active PFI members who attended arms training and conspiracy meetings, and that the gravity of the offence and criminal antecedents warranted denial of bail.

Legal Analysis

The Court exhaustively examined the requirement of informing grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19 of the PML Act, as interpreted in Pankaj Bansal , Ram Kishor Arora , and Prabir Purkayastha . It held that since the appellants were arrested before the Pankaj Bansal judgment, the non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest could not be held illegal.

On the application of Section 43-D(5) of the UA(P) Act, the Court referred to Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb . It noted that the degree of satisfaction for finding the accusation 'prima facie true' is lighter than for framing charges. The Court found that the materials, including CCTV footage, recovery of weapons, DNA evidence from the appellants' clothes, and statements of protected witnesses, prima facie established their active role in the conspiracy and execution of the terrorist act.

The Court distinguished the bail granted to other accused in Muhammed Bilal , observing that the appellants were not mere members of a 'Defence Team' but were directly involved in the assault and destruction of evidence. The principle of parity could not be applied mechanically, especially given the recovery of the victim's DNA from their belongings.

Key Observations

"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 of the 19th and 20th accused in the conspiracy and destruction of evidence ."

"The rigours of such provisions [Section 43-D(5)] will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence ."

"The courts, while dispensing justice in cases under the UA (P) Act, should keep in mind not only the liberty of the accused but also the interests of the victims and their near and dear ones and above all the collective interests of the community and the safety of the nation ."

Court's Decision

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal, upholding the Special Court's order denying bail to Abdul Kader and Firoz. The Court concluded that considering the prescribed punishment under Section 302 IPC and Section 16(1)(a) of the UA(P) Act—which includes death or life imprisonment—the period of 4 years and 4 months of custody does not exceed a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Therefore, no ground for bail under Article 21 of the Constitution was made out. The Court noted that the establishment of two exclusive NIA Special Courts in Ernakulam would ensure a speedy trial. The dismissal reinforces the stringent bail regime under the UA(P) Act when prima facie evidence of terrorist activity is present, even in cases of prolonged pre-trial detention.