Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court

"Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the gravity of the offence, the prima facie materials available on record, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail." Kerala High Court, in a decisive ruling dated July 3, 2026, has refused to grant regular bail to a "habitual offender" and "gang leader" accused of the brutal murder of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste community.

A single bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the release of such an individual would adversely affect public tranquility and pose a significant threat to the safety of witnesses who are already living in fear.

The appellant, Linto Lijo, who was the first accused in the case, had challenged an order of the Special Court for the trial of offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Ernakulam, which had dismissed his regular bail plea. The High Court, after perusing the extensive criminal record of the appellant, found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's decision, emphasizing that the gravity of the offence and the antecedents of the accused outweighed the period of his custody.

The prosecution alleged that on October 6, 2024, the appellant and a co-accused, driven by prior enmity, reached the house of the victim in Kallumala. The victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. It was alleged that the appellant brutally assaulted the victim with a chopper, inflicting multiple injuries, including the amputation of the victim's right hand.

The victim subsequently succumbed to these injuries. Consequently, the accused were charged under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant had been in custody since October 7, 2023.

The primary question before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to regular bail under Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act despite having a history of 13 criminal involvements and being classified as a "KAAPA" detenu. The court was also called upon to determine if the apprehension of witness intimidation by the prosecution was substantiated enough to deny liberty.

Accused Identified As Habitual Offender And Gang Leader

The court took serious note of the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, which characterized the appellant as a habitual offender, a gang leader, and a drug addict. The report revealed that the appellant had been involved in 13 serious crimes, including murder and offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

The bench observed that although the appellant had been acquitted in five of those cases, eight cases were still pending against him. The court noted that the appellant had previously been detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (KAAPA) for his persistent involvement in criminal activities, which strongly indicated a propensity to repeat such offences if released.

Court Highlights Brutality Of The Crime And Dying Declaration

Justice Badharudeen highlighted the gruesome nature of the murder, noting that the victim's hand was amputated during the assault. The court found that there was cogent evidence against the appellant, including a dying declaration made by the deceased before his death, which specifically named the appellant and described his overt acts.

The bench remarked that the presence of a dying declaration, coupled with the medical evidence showing 12 antemortem injuries, created a strong prima facie case against the appellant. The court held that the gravity of such a "gruesome murder" committed in retaliation for vengeance necessitated the continued detention of the accused to ensure the integrity of the trial.

Witness Intimidation And Impact On Public Tranquillity

The court expressed deep concern over the impact of the crime on the local community. It was noted that the murder had caused such panic in the village that the majority of residents had temporarily shifted their residences. The police had to conduct special camps and intervene to bring the villagers back and secure a sense of normalcy.

The court observed that if bail were granted, it would affect public tranquility in the locality and render the police's efforts to protect the community futile. The bench agreed with the prosecution that the witnesses and residents were living in "constant fear" of the appellant, who belongs to the same locality and possesses the influence to intimidate or harm them.

Likelihood Of Abscondence And Tampering With Evidence

The High Court concurred with the Special Judge's finding that there was a high likelihood of the appellant influencing or threatening witnesses to prevent them from adducing evidence. The court also noted that given the appellant's history, the risk of him absconding from the legal process could not be ruled out.

"This is a fit case where the trial is to be completed keeping the 1st accused/appellant in custody."

The bench concluded that the Special Judge was right in finding that the appellant could not be released on regular bail. The court emphasized that the necessity of a fair trial and the protection of the marginalized community and witnesses took precedence over the personal liberty of a habitual offender in such grave circumstances.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Special Court denying bail. The court directed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Special Court for information and further steps, effectively mandating that the trial proceed while the appellant remains in judicial custody.

Date of Decision: 03 July 2026