A clear case exists: The Kerala High Court supports the rejection of bail requests from PFI members charged in the murder of an RSS worker.

The Kerala High Court rejected the appeals regarding the bail applications of those accused in the murder case of RSS worker Srinivasan. This case is under investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which claims that members of the Popular Front of India (PFI) were involved in a broader plan to carry out terrorist activities linked to their “India 2047” agenda. Accused individuals numbered 31, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, and 55 contested the Special Court’s decision to deny their bail under Section 439 of the CrPC, referencing Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). A Division Bench, consisting of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, stated, “We believe the prosecution has demonstrated that the claims against the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.1842/2024 are likely true. Upon reviewing the records, it is noted that Abbas (A47), the first appellant, provided the motorcycle with registration No.KL-9-AQ-713 to the attackers. This vehicle was used for reconnaissance to identify the target and to carry out the attack. Noushad (A48) and Basheer (A49) utilized the motorcycle with registration No.KL-9-AK-6726 on the night of April 15, 2022, to scout the target. A mobile phone hidden by Ashraf (A44) was recovered based on the information given by Noushad (A48).”

E.A. Haris represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Sasthamangalam S Ajithkumar stood for the Respondents. The NIA’s charge sheet named 51 people, claiming the murder was planned to incite communal unrest and fear in the state. The High Court found that the prosecution had proven the accusations against the accused were likely true. The Bench observed that Accused no. 47 provided the motorcycle used by the attackers. This vehicle was utilized for scouting the target and carrying out the attack. Accused no. 48 and 49 also used another motorcycle at night to survey the target.

The Bench noted that a mobile phone hidden by Accused no. 44 was found based on information from Accused no. 48. The Court mentioned that various items, including documents and a controversial question paper linked to a previous case, were seized from Ameer Ali’s home. It was also highlighted that Accused no. 55 stayed with other PFI leaders at a lodge where they planned Srinivasan’s murder. Accused no. 55 actively participated in the conspiracy meeting with the attackers. As a result, the Court concluded that the appellants were not eligible for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UA (P) Act. Therefore, the High Court rejected the Appeal.

Cause Title: Haneefa & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:87679)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates E.A. Haris, Renjith B. Marar, P.P. Harris
Respondents: Senior Advocate Sasthamangalam S Ajithkumar; Advocate Sreenath Sasidharan