The Kerala High Court has dismissed a plea by the accused in the Shuhaib murder case to transfer the trial out of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thalassery, while directing the trial court to ensure that both sides get a full and effective opportunity to participate, including cross-examination of witnesses.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed a transfer petition filed by the accused persons in the murder case of Youth Congress activist Shuhaib, who sought to move the trial from the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thalassery, to another competent court, and directed the trial court to ensure that both parties are afforded a full and effective opportunity to participate in the trial [Akash M.V. and Others v. State of Kerala].
Justice C.S. Dias pronounced the order in open court. The detailed order is awaited, and LawChakra has not yet reviewed it.
The case
According to the prosecution, Shuhaib was killed by CPI(M) workers at Mattanur in Kannur district in February 2018. The accused are facing trial, the allegations are untested, and they are presumed innocent. The High Court’s order concerns only the forum and the conduct of the trial, and expresses no view on the merits of the prosecution case.
Why the accused sought a transfer
The accused approached the High Court saying they had a reasonable apprehension that they may not receive a fair and impartial trial before the present court. Before that, they had moved the Sessions Court, Thalassery, for a transfer. Their first application was dismissed on a technical ground, for want of an affidavit, and a second application, filed with an affidavit, was rejected on merits on June 6, 2026.
The petitioners contended that when one of the witnesses was examined, they asked the trial judge to note the witness’s demeanour to show that the witness had been tutored, and that the trial court rejected the request. They said the trial court later dismissed an application concerning the recording of evidence and cautioned against similar petitions in future. They also alleged that the bail bonds of the accused were cancelled on May 25, 2026 and that they were remanded to custody, despite regular appearance and without any deliberate attempt to delay proceedings, after the court heard that a transfer petition had been filed before the Principal Sessions Court. Finally, they submitted that certain remarks by the presiding officer in open court about defence advocates had eroded their confidence in the court.
Earlier orders in the High Court
In June, a Bench of Justice G. Girish had stayed the trial court proceedings on an interim basis while the transfer petition was pending. The High Court had also stayed the Sessions Court order cancelling the bail, and the bail applications before it were closed after it received an explanation from the trial judge on the cancellation. The petitioners had separately moved the High Court in Crl.M.C. No. 4292 of 2026 against a trial court order, and that number also appears in the title of Tuesday’s order.
What the High Court directed
Justice Dias directed the Sessions Judge to ensure that both parties get a full and effective opportunity to participate in the trial, including by reopening the evidence on the court’s own motion and permitting the counsel for the accused to cross-examine the witnesses. The counsel for the accused are expected to cooperate with the court and to avoid unnecessary interruptions or adjournments. Noting that the case dates from 2018 and that many witnesses are cited, the Court said the trial must be conducted with due expedition, and directed the Sessions Court to dispose of the case “untrammeled by any observations in this order.” The transfer petition was then dismissed.
ALSO READ: A Judicially-Trained Mind Won’t Be Influenced by a Movie: Kerala High Court
Why it matters
Transfer petitions ask a higher court to move a trial when there is a reasonable apprehension that a fair trial is not possible, and such a plea is decided on whether that apprehension is made out, not on the merits of the case. Here, the Court declined to move the trial, but paired that decision with directions aimed at the concerns the accused had raised, namely a full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, including by reopening evidence, and it also asked the defence for cooperation and the trial court for expedition. The Court’s reasons for refusing the transfer will be clear only from the detailed order.
The order does not decide guilt or innocence, and no view is expressed here on the accused’s allegations about the conduct of the trial or on the prosecution’s case. The trial, which has been pending since 2018, will now continue before the same court.
Case Title: Akash M.V. and Others v. State of Kerala [Tr.P(Crl.) No. 38 of 2026 and Crl.M.C. No. 4292 of 2026]
Bench: Justice C.S. Dias, Kerala High Court
Date of Order: September 29, 2026
Appearances: For the Petitioners, Advocates S. Rajeev, M.S. Aneer, Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Sarath K.P., Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, T.P. Aravind, Maheswar Padickal, Akshara S. and Dipa V.