The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, dismissed the criminal writ petition filed by five persons who are among the sixteen accused in the murder of SFI activist Abhimanyu. The petitioners had sought a stay of the proceedings before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, contending that the ongoing investigation against ten other accused, who are alleged to have harboured the main accused, would prejudice their trial. Justice G. Girish, after hearing the arguments, rejected the plea and observed that the continuance of the trial against the sixteen accused while the investigation against the harbouring accused is in progress cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to cause prejudice to the sixteen accused.
The Court characterised the petitioners’ request as an attempt to procrastinate the trial. It emphasized that the accusation against the sixteen accused is clear and specific: they are alleged to have hatched a conspiracy, attacked and murdered the victim during a campus political rivalry at Maharaja’s College in Ernakulam in 2018. The prosecution case states that the sixteen accused, who were activists of the student organisation Campus Front, planned to unleash terror and violence to facilitate their entry into the college campus and to oppress the SFI by physical means. It is further alleged that they came to the campus armed with weapons such as a knife, a punching block and a wooden rod, and thereafter stabbed the victim.
In contrast, the ten harbouring accused (Accused Nos. 17 to 26) are charged only with providing shelter and assistance to the sixteen accused after the offence, allegedly helping them to abscond. The prosecution has indicated that a separate final report will be filed against these harbouring accused once the investigation against them is concluded. The Court noted that the two sets of proceedings are distinct and that the trial of the principal accused does not depend on the outcome of the investigation into the harbouring offence.
The Bench also referred to earlier directions issued by the High Court in related matters. It recalled that the mother of the victim had approached the Court alleging undue delay in the trial of the sixteen accused, prompting the High Court to direct the Sessions Court to expedite and conclude the trial. Additionally, in a separate petition filed by two of the accused against whom a final report is still pending, the High Court had ordered the investigating agency to speed up the probe and submit the final report without further delay.
Counsel for the petitioners, comprising E.A. Haris, M.A. Ahammad Saheer, Muhammed Yasil, Aagi Johny and Ifra Iqbal, argued that the trial should be held in abeyance to avoid any possible prejudice arising from overlapping evidence. Counsel for the State, represented by K.S. Arun Kumar, Deepa Varma K., Vijay Sankar V.H., Amrutha K.P., Jerin Joseph and Sameer S. (Public Prosecutor), countered that the charges against the two groups are separate and that the trial of the sixteen accused may proceed independently.
After considering the submissions, the Court held that the plea lacked merit and dismissed the writ petition. The trial of Accused Nos. 1 to 16 shall therefore continue before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, while the investigation against Accused Nos. 17 to 26 proceeds separately. The judgment is cited as 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 372, Case No. W.P.(Crl.) 983/2026, titled Muhammed J.I. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.