Shahabas Murder Case: Kerala High Court grants bail to 6 juvenile accused

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday granted bail to six juveniles accused in the murder of 15-year-old Shahabas in Kozhikode earlier this year. [XXXX & ors v. State of Kerala and connected cases]

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the order granting bail and permitted their release from the Kozhikode Observation Home on the personal bond of their parents.

The Court opined that observation homes are not meant for prolonged detention, especially when the juveniles have no prior criminal records.

"...an Observation Home is for the temporary reception, care and rehabilitation of a child in conflict with law during the pendency of an inquiry under the [Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015] Act. Though retention of a child in conflict with law in an Observation Home is, to an extent, a measure of rehabilitation, continuing a child for long periods in such home cannot be said to be in the best interests of a child, unless there are other compelling reasons. Further, as per section 3 of the JJ Act, while administering the statute, every child is given a right to be reunited with his family at the earliest and restored to the same socio economic and cultural status that he was in, before coming under the purview of the Act, unless it is not in his best interest", Court stated.

In late February this year, the six juveniles, along with fifteen others, allegedly assaulted Shahabas during a dispute that arose between groups of students at a tuition centre.

Armed with deadly weapons, they allegedly restrained and brutally assaulted Shahabas, resulting in a skull fracture. 

Despite immediate medical attention, Shahabas succumbed to his injuries the same day.

The juveniles allegedly involved in the incident were apprehended by the police on March 1, 2025 and remained in detention since then.

They were charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 126(2) (wrongful restraint), 189(2) (unlawful assembly) and 191(2) & (3) (punishment for rioting), 103(1) (punishment for murder), and 118(2) (punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt), read with Section 190 (unlawful assembly).

The current bail applications were moved before the High Court after the Juvenile Justice Board, the Sessions Court, and a single bench of the High Court earlier dismissed similar pleas.

Counsel for the juveniles had argued that while there was a prima facie case for rejecting their earlier bail applications, the situation is different, now that the police investigation has been completed.

It was argued that any concerns the State might have about the safety of the juveniles or the law and order situation, can be addressed by imposing bail conditions.

Further pointing to the academic future of the students, the counsel requested that they be released to enable them to attend school and continue their education.

The Court after hearing the submissions pointed that the earlier bail pleas were denied based on an anonymous letter addressed to the school principal, warning of danger if the juveniles were allowed to write their SSLC examination.

However, since the juveniles had already completed their exams in March and the results had been published, the court observed that such a letter could no longer form the basis of a real threat.

The Court went on to explain that Section 12 (1) of the JJ Act provides that a juvenile should ordinarily be released on bail, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that such release would bring the juvenile harm.

Taking note of the circumstances and the absence of any real and current threat, the Court granted them bail observing that continued detention of the juveniles was not required in the present circumstances.

It also directed the parents to submit affidavits and made it clear that the juveniles must cooperate with the ongoing investigation and refrain from engaging in any criminal activity.

Advocate KM Firoz appeared for five of the petitioners.

Shahabas's father was represented by advocates Kodoth Sreedharan, KP Muhammad Arif, Abdul Jaleel UK, and Chackochen Vithayathil.

Public Prosecutor Suresh represented the State.

[Read Order]