Ernakulam: In a quietly tense courtroom on Tuesday, Justice K. Babu of the Kerala High Court delivered a detailed order granting regular bail to two accused in the 2021 Pulikeezhu murder case. The judge, while acknowledging the seriousness of the charges, said personal liberty and the ability to prepare a proper defence could not be ignored, especially when the trial continues to drag on.
Background
The case stems from Crime No. 1016/2021 registered at Pulikeezhu Police Station in Pathanamthitta district, where Sandeep, a local resident, was allegedly murdered on 2 December 2021.
The two petitioners—27-year-old Pramod Prasannan (Accused No.2) and 32-year-old Jishnu Reghu (Accused No.1) have been facing a slew of serious charges, including murder, rioting with deadly weapons, conspiracy, attempt to murder, house trespass, and offences under the Arms Act.
The trial, pending before the Additional Sessions Court–I, Pathanamthitta, has seen multiple delays. The prosecution had accused the defence of adopting “tactics to protract the proceedings,” but defence lawyers strongly disputed this, calling the accusation unfair.
Court's Observations
Justice Babu took a granular look at the circumstances behind earlier cancellations of bail. The judge observed that Pramod's absence on 29 July 2025-which triggered the cancellation of his bail-occurred when he was already in judicial custody in another case.
"The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner failed to appear before the Court as he was in custody… cancellation of bail was not warranted," the order noted. The bench seemed to find some weight in that argument, especially since there was no record of him attempting to evade the trial.
The judge also dwelt extensively on the relevance of fair defence opportunity, repeatedly citing Supreme Court precedents. In one instance, he recalled the principle from Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia that an accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and properly defend himself. Another passage quoted in the order emphasised that jail conditions often place under-trial prisoners at severe disadvantages.
The prosecution, represented by Senior Public Prosecutor CK Suresh, pushed back, warning that both accused had earlier caused delays.
"From 11.04.2025 onwards, the case was adjourned… the accused have been adopting tactics to protract the proceedings," he argued.
Justice Babu, however, noted a crucial gap in the prosecution’s narrative.
"There is nothing to show that the involvement of the accused in the crime referred to above had any nexus with any attempt to protract the trial," the court said, subtly undercutting the prosecution’s insistence.
When the arguments shifted to Jishnu (Accused No.1), the judge accepted that parity was relevant. Earlier his bail was cancelled after he failed to appear, but the judge recognised that circumstances had changed since the dismissal of his earlier bail plea.
"The petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled to the benefit granted to accused No.2," the order stated.
Decision
With this reasoning, Justice Babu allowed bail applications No.13033/2025 and 13369/2025 and imposed strict safeguards. Both accused must execute bonds of ₹5 lakh each, appear for every hearing, avoid all contact with prosecution witnesses, and refrain from any attempt to influence them.
The judge ended the order with an insistence on speed: the trial court must dispose of Sessions Case No.157/2022 within six months a final reminder that justice delayed can turn into justice denied.