Legal Review and Analysis of Vishnu Etc vs State of Kerala & Anr 2025 INSC 1136

1. Heading of the Judgment

Vishnu etc. vs. State of Kerala & Anr.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 4197–4201 of 2025
Decided on: September 22, 2025
Coram: Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ.

Citation:

Vishnu etc. vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (2025) INSC 1136, Supreme Court of India.

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment extensively refers to the following legal provisions:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 120-B, 109, 115, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 302.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  Section 439(2): Cancellation of bail.
  Section 482: Inherent powers of the High Court.
  Section 173(2): Filing of police report (charge sheet).

• Arms Act, 1959: Section 27(1).

• Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 25 (in context of a subsequent offence).

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Appellants: Abhimanue, Athul, Sanand, Vishnu, Dhaneesh (A-3, A-5, A-4, A-2, A-6 respectively).

• Respondents: State of Kerala and the widow of the victim.

• Nature of Case: Appeals against the Kerala High Court’s order cancelling bail granted to the appellants.

• Background:
  The appellants were accused of a politically motivated murder (December 2021).
  They were granted bail by the Sessions Court in December 2022 after nearly a year in custody.
  The State’s application for cancellation was rejected by the Sessions Court in April 2024.
  The High Court, in December 2024, set aside the bail orders for five accused (the appellants), citing procedural flaws and gravity of the offence.
  The Supreme Court heard appeals against this cancellation.

4. Core Principle of the Judgment

Issue Before the Supreme Court

Whether the High Court was justified in revoking the bail granted to the appellants on the grounds that the Sessions Court’s bail order was perverse, non-speaking, and mechanically passed without considering the seriousness of the offence or potential witness tampering.

Key Legal Questions Addressed

• Maintainability of a second bail cancellation application before the High Court after rejection by the Sessions Court.

• Distinction between cancellation of bail (due to misconduct) and revocation of bail (due to illegal/perverse grant).

• Relevance of criminal antecedents and delay in filing cancellation petitions.

• Balancing personal liberty with societal interest and fair trial requirements.

Analysis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

A. Maintainability of the Cancellation Petition

The appellants argued that the State’s petition before the High Court was not maintainable since a similar application had already been rejected by the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the High Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC read with Section 439(2) to correct a manifestly erroneous bail order.

B. Cancellation vs. Revocation of Bail

The Court reiterated the legal distinction:

• Cancellation: Based on post-bail misconduct (e.g., witness tampering, offence repetition).

• Revocation: Based on illegality or perversity in the bail order itself.
  Citing P v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Court emphasized that a bail order passed without considering relevant factors (e.g., gravity of offence, witness safety) can be set aside by a superior court.

C. Appraisal of the High Court’s Order

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the Sessions Court’s order was indeed non-speaking and based solely on:

• Length of custody (one year).

• Lack of opposition from the Public Prosecutor.
  However, the Supreme Court held that the High Court should have remanded the matter to the Sessions Court for fresh consideration instead of outright revocation, especially since the appellants had been on bail for nearly two years without major violations.

D. Criminal Antecedents and Subsequent Conduct

• The Court noted that criminal antecedents alone are not grounds for bail denial (relying on Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024).

• Regarding an alleged offence committed by Vishnu during interim bail, the Court gave limited weight to the subsequent FIR since the complainant had filed an affidavit denying the accused’s involvement.

E. Emphasis on Personal Liberty and Fair Trial

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” principle. It stressed that prolonged custody without trial and the absence of proven misconduct during bail period tilted the balance in favor of liberty.

5. Final Outcome and Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored bail to the appellants subject to stringent conditions:

• Appellants shall not enter Alappuzha district except for trial.

• Regular attendance at police station.

• No delay in trial or witness intimidation.

• Trial court may impose additional conditions.

• State directed to ensure witness protection and expeditious trial.

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1. In Vishnu vs. State of Kerala, what was the primary legal distinction emphasized by the Supreme Court between cancellation and revocation of bail?

A) Cancellation is done by the Sessions Court, revocation by the High Court.
B) Cancellation is based on post-bail misconduct, while revocation is due to an illegal bail order.
C) Revocation applies only in civil cases, cancellation in criminal cases.
D) Cancellation requires fresh evidence, revocation requires witness testimony.

Question 2. Which of the following conditions was not imposed by the Supreme Court while granting bail to the appellants?

A) Regular presence at the trial court on hearing dates.
B) Surrender of passports and no international travel.
C) Not entering Alappuzha district except for trial purposes.
D) Informing the trial court of their place of stay.