"Alleged PFI Membership Insufficient To Attract Culpability": Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Accused In RSS Worker Sanjith's Murder

RSS worker Sanjith was murdered on November 15, 2011 allegedly by five persons due to political animosity. During the investigation, Haroon was implicated as the sixth accused for hatching conspiracy with other accused for the murder. The crime was registered alleging the commission of offences punishable under sections 143,144,147,148,341,302,120B, 201,212,109,118, 465, 471 read with 149 of the IPC & section 27(3) r/w 7(a) and (b) of the Arms Act.

Allowing the bail application of Haroon, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held thus,

“As far as the petitioner in this case is concerned, he has been in custody since 23.01.2022 and thus, more than two years and nine months have elapsed. Moreover, the petitioner was never involved in any other offences in the past. Even though there is an allegation that he was an active member of PFI, a banned organisation, it was contended by the petitioner that, as on the date of commission of the crime, it was not banned. The said contention is not denied by the prosecution. Therefore, the fact that he was a member of such an organisation, by itself, would not attract any culpability, warranting incarceration, and it is for the prosecution to establish the role of the petitioner, in the trial.”

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Haroon had been in custody since January 2022 and cited his long incarceration in custody to seek bail.

The prosecution alleges that Haroon was an active member of the Popular Front of India (PFI), which is a banned organization. It was also alleged that PFI was behind the murder of Sanjith. It is also alleged that the petitioner participated in five conspiracies held by the accused, out of the total seven conspiracies. It was submitted that his earlier two bail applications were rejected and there was no change in circumstances.

The Court noted that the allegations against the petitioner do not state that he was physically involved in the murder of Sanjith. The Court went on to state that the allegations against the petitioner were of criminal conspiracy which has to be proved in trial. It also noted that there was no prosecution case that the petitioner committed any acts for aiding the other accused to commit the murder.

The court further relied upon Apex Court decisions to state that long incarceration without trial could be a ground to release the petitioner on bail.

Relying upon Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v State of Maharashtra (2024), Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), Prem Prakash v. Union of India (2024), Aravind Kejriwal v. CBI (2024), the High Court stated that the Apex Court has made significant observations regarding granting of bail even when the accused persons were alleged to have committed offences punishable under special enactments like NDPS Act, UAPA, PMLA etc. Further, the Court stated that in Jalaludhin Khan v. Union of India (2024), the accused therein was also a member of PFI.

“….long incarceration of the accused and the delay in trial by itself cannot be grounds to grant bail to the accused. However, certain observations repeatedly made by the Honourable Supreme Court in the recent decisions, that too in cases involving offences under special enactments such as, NDPS Act, UAPA etc., where additional conditions are imposed for granting bail, cannot be lost sight of”, stated the Court

In the facts of the case, the Court observed that the petitioner was not held liable under any special enactments as in the above cases. 

The Court stated that it is relevant to note that some other persons who were similarly in jail for allegedly committing grave offences, like that of the petitioner were granted bail.

The Court further observed that the petitioner had been in judicial custody for more than two years and nine months. It noted that even though charges were framed as early as on December 2023, the trial has not been scheduled yet. 

As such, the petitioner's bail application was allowed by the High Court. “..taking note of the period of incarceration of the petitioner, possible delay in completing the trial and the nature of allegations against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail", said the Court.

Counsel for Petitioners: Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant, Advocates M.A.Ahammad Saheer, E.A.Haris, Muhammed Yasil

Counsel for Respondents: ADGP and Senior Advocate Grashious Kuriakose

Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 7225 OF 2024

Case Title: Muhammed Haroon v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 646

Click here to Read/Download Order