The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on 22 September 2025, restored bail to five accused persons in the Abhimanue v. State of Kerala case concerning the murder of Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) State Secretary KS Shan. The Court held that criminal antecedents alone cannot be the sole basis for cancellation of bail, reiterating the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
This judgment not only impacts the ongoing trial in this politically sensitive case but also reinforces broader principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding liberty, presumption of innocence, and proportionality in bail decisions.
Background of the Case
On December 2021, KS Shan, the then State Secretary of the SDPI, was brutally murdered in Kerala, allegedly due to political rivalry. The accused—Abhimanue, Athul, Sanand, Vishnu, and Dhaneesh—were alleged to be members of the RSS, and the crime was claimed to have stemmed from political enmity.
The accused were taken into custody and remained in jail for almost a year. In December 2022, the trial court granted them bail after considering the duration of custody and lack of immediate threat to the investigation.
However, in December 2024, the Kerala High Court cancelled their bail on the State’s appeal, citing concerns about criminal antecedents and the possibility of witness intimidation.
The accused approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s cancellation order.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih restored bail, noting several crucial factors:
- Length of Custody and Bail History
- The accused had already undergone one year of custody before being released.
- They had been out on bail for nearly two years without any proven incident of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
- Antecedents Alone Insufficient
- The State emphasized that the accused had multiple criminal antecedents.
- The Court clarified that antecedents by themselves cannot justify cancellation of bail, citing Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2025), which held that bail may be granted even where antecedents exist, depending on case-specific facts.
- Violation of Bail Conditions
- The State argued that accused Vishnu violated bail by attacking another person.
- However, the victim, Abhiram, filed an affidavit denying Vishnu’s involvement. The Court remarked that there was “more than what meets the eyes”, and refused to treat this as a valid ground for cancellation.
- Doctrine of Bail
- The judgment, authored by Justice Datta, emphasized Justice Krishna Iyer’s classic principle that “bail is the rule and jail the exception.”
- With 141 witnesses to be examined, the Court noted that the trial would take significant time. The balance, therefore, must tilt in favor of liberty.
Conditions Imposed on Bail
To address the State’s concerns, the Court imposed stringent bail conditions:
- The accused cannot enter Alappuzha district (the crime scene) except for trial purposes.
- They must mark attendance every other day at the local police station where they reside.
- After the examination of eye-witnesses, they may seek relaxation of conditions.
- Kerala Police must appoint a monitoring officer to ensure compliance and protect witnesses.
- The State was directed to ensure the presence of witnesses at trial dates to avoid delays.
Significance of the Ruling
This judgment reinforces several important principles of criminal law and bail jurisprudence:
1. Bail as a Fundamental Right
The Court’s reliance on the doctrine that liberty is paramount underscores the importance of personal freedom under Article 21 of the Constitution. Prolonged incarceration without trial goes against the spirit of due process.
2. Antecedents Not Decisive
By holding that antecedents alone cannot deny bail, the Court drew a distinction between past allegations and present conduct. This ensures that an accused is not perpetually punished for prior cases, especially when trials are pending.
3. Balancing Liberty and Justice
The Court demonstrated that concerns about witness intimidation or tampering can be addressed through stringent bail conditions rather than outright denial of bail. This reflects a balanced approach to justice.
4. Expediting Criminal Trials
The Court directed the trial court to fast-track proceedings, recognizing that justice delayed can become justice denied for both the accused and the victim’s family.
Comparison with Other Bail Rulings
The ruling aligns with recent Supreme Court pronouncements emphasizing liberty in bail matters:
- Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2025): Bail can be granted despite antecedents, depending on circumstances.
- Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022): Emphasized the principle that bail should not be denied mechanically and stressed the need for timely trials.
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): Highlighted the plight of undertrials and laid the foundation for speedy trial as a fundamental right.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna recently flagged the Supreme Court’s increasing burden of bail cases, calling it a “bail court.” This case reflects why bail disputes continue to dominate judicial workload—where liberty and law enforcement collide.
Political and Social Dimensions
The murder of KS Shan, a senior SDPI leader, was politically charged, involving allegations against RSS members. The restoration of bail may spark debates over:
- Victim’s family concerns: The widow of KS Shan, represented by Senior Advocate R Basant, opposed bail citing risks to witnesses.
- Political rivalry: Given the backdrop of SDPI-RSS tensions in Kerala, the ruling has political resonance.
- Public trust in judiciary: The Court’s emphasis on liberty seeks to reinforce faith in due process, even in emotionally charged cases.
Key Takeaways
- Bail is the rule, jail is the exception—a reaffirmed constitutional doctrine.
- Antecedents are not enough—courts must consider actual risk factors before denying bail.
- Stringent conditions can balance liberty and safeguard witness protection.
- Trial delays cannot justify prolonged incarceration without conviction.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Abhimanue v. State of Kerala (2025 LiveLaw SC 929) is a reminder that the justice system must strike a delicate balance between protecting society and safeguarding individual liberty. While the murder of KS Shan was a grave and politically sensitive crime, the Court made it clear that bail cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of antecedents or speculation of risk.
By restoring bail with strict safeguards, the Court upheld the constitutional principle that every accused is innocent until proven guilty, and prolonged detention without trial undermines justice. As the trial proceeds with 141 witnesses, the real test will be ensuring that justice is served swiftly, fairly, and without prejudice.
Also Read
Delhi High Court: Spouse Can Sue Partner’s Lover for Damages in “Alienation of Affection” Cases
