Kerala High Court Reserves Order In Bail Plea Moved By SFI Leader Who Violated Earlier Bail Conditions

The Kerala High Court on Friday reserved its verdict on the bail application moved by Arsho P.M, the State Secretary of the Students' Federation of India (SFI), who was taken into custody for the second time after he violated the bail conditions imposed on him.

Justice Viju Abraham heard both the counsels extensively before reserving orders in the bail application. The Judge orally remarked that the decision will be pronounced next week. 

The 27-year-old SFI leader was the second accused in a case where a group of people trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant in 2018 with an intention to commit culpable homicide and attacked him with deadly weapons causing injuries. 

The prosecution case was that the petitioner, along with four others in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by them with the intention to commit the murder of the defacto complainant, trespassed into his rented room with dangerous weapons like a knife and iron pipe, shouting to do away with the defacto complainant, physically assaulted him with these weapons, thereby causing imminent threat to life.

He was thereby arrested in 2019 but was released on bail two months later with conditions, including one that he shall not get involved in any other crime and that any such involvement will be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Nevertheless, he was arrested again after he allegedly got himself involved in 12 crimes while out on bail. Thereby the bail granted to him was cancelled. This cancellation of bail was challenged by the petitioner before several fora but to no avail. He was represented by Advocate P.K Varghese before the High Court. 

Today when the matter was taken up, Counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, Advocate Vinay V., challenged the maintainability of the bail application. He contended that the petitioner being an SFI leader, has a substantial influence on the Police as in many cases where he was actively involved, his name was not included in the list of accused. It was pointed out that private complaints are pending before the Court and that he was involved in an offence punishable under Section 344 IPC, that too after discretion was exercised in his favour by the Court.

He further contended that the petitioner was suspended from the college on more than three occasions for assaulting his collegemates. It is also pointed out that he was involved in 30 crimes during the time in which bail was granted, and he actively participated in at least 4 cases where students were harassed. Even after the cancellation of the bail, the petitioner was absconding for 4 months when a look our notice was issued.

The Counsel submitted that these facts are very substantial in the case. The contention challenging the maintainability of the bail application was substantiated by an Apex Court decision in which the Court considered discretionary jurisdiction in which it was held that a party who approaches the Court for the exercise of this overriding discretion of the Court must come with clean hands and it appears on his part there is any attempt to overreach or mislead the Court with untrue statements or by withholding true information would have a bearing on the question of exercise of the discretion the Court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion or if the discretion is exercised can be revoked. 

This Court had previously granted him interim bail till 3rd August, permitting him to appear for his exams conducted by the MG University which were scheduled from 23rd July till 3rd August.

Notably, a Single Bench had denied him statutory bail observing that he cannot be equated to a person who continues in custody without any charge sheet being filed against him.

Case Title: Arsho P.M v. State of Kerala