As hitlist of 950 leaders including judges is recovered from PFI terrorists, here is how SC gave bail to a PFI terrorist accused of killing a Hindu leader saying ‘only one person killed’: Details
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) recently informed a special NIA court that they have uncovered a hitlist of over 950 individuals at the locations linked to members of the banned Islamic organisation Popular Front of India (PFI). The revelation was made during the bail hearing of PFI terrorists from Palakkad.
While the hitlist has emerged, it has to be noted that on 21st May this year, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to PFI terrorists in the case of the murder of a Hindu leader. The apex court, during the hearing, stated, “Only one person has been killed. How many people do you want to put behind the bars?” Despite the Attorney General of India’s (ASG) Raja Thakare’s objection and argument that PFI had a hitlist and it was not about one murder but a larger conspiracy, bail was granted to Yahya Thangal and Abdul Rauf in the murder case of RSS leader Sreenivasan.
The remarks made by the bench during the hearing raise serious concerns over the judiciary’s treatment of violent Islamist conspiracies. The case was heard by two-Judge bench comprising Justice Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
ASG flagged Yahya Thangal’s role in selecting Hindu murder targets
ASG Thakare argued that Thangal was not merely a protestor, as claimed by the defence. He was a key figure in a retaliatory murder conspiracy. He cited an approver’s statement that after the murder of PFI member Subair, seven teams were formed to pick a Hindu to be murdered in revenge. Thangal and Rauf were part of the team that selected RSS worker Sreenivasan as the target for revenge when they gathered at the hospital where Subair’s body was kept. Notably, Thangal was earlier accused of making communal remarks against judges of the Kerala High Court.
Court undermines conspiracy laws, ignores established legal precedent
Despite the submissions by the ASG, Justice Oka questioned the implications of Thangal and others in the murder. He stated, “These people are sitting somewhere else… how can they be made responsible?” He further remarked, “Only one man is killed. Murder is only of one man.”
The line of reasoning runs contrary to the very definition of criminal conspiracy under Indian law. A conspiracy need not involve physical execution of the act; participation in planning or facilitation is enough. It is established that conspiracy is proved largely through circumstantial evidence. Yet, the apex court ignored the basic legal principle and granted bail, arguing that no direct communication to the hit team had been shown in the approver’s statement.
Notably, Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), or, earlier, Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, clearly lays down the legal definition for criminal conspiracy. It states that when two or more persons agree with a common object to do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means, such an agreement constitutes a criminal conspiracy.
It is crucial to note that the law clarifies that an overt act in pursuance of such agreement is only needed when the agreement is not to commit an offence. This means that in cases where the objective of the conspiracy is to commit an offence, as in the targeted killing of Hindu RSS leader Sreenivasan, no further act is required for the offence of conspiracy to be established. Hence, the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the approver’s statement for lacking direct communication to the hit team is not only legally flawed but also contrary to well-established jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court has from time to time given rulings supporting the fact that it is hard to establish direct evidence to prove conspiracy. For example, in Kehar Singh vs State (Delhi) in 1988, and in Major EG Barsay vs State of Bombay in 1961, the court ruled that mere agreement, even without overt act, is sufficient to constitute conspiracy.
In Rajiv Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh in 2017, the court categorically said that “It is extremely difficult to adduce direct evidence to prove conspiracy.” The court further added, “Existence of conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused.”
Despite the legal precedent, the court decided to grant bail.
Ideology of murderers is not punishable, says judge
What is even more alarming is the court’s approach towards the ideological motivation of the accused. In the case of Abdul Sathar, who has over 70 criminal cases against him, including for violent protests, the bench argued that “people cannot be kept in jail for ideology.” Justice Oka said, “For ideology, you can’t keep somebody in jail. That is the trend we find. It is because they have adopted a particular ideology.”
This statement raises serious questions. The “ideology” here is not an abstract political or religious leaning. It is the same one found in PFI’s infamous “India 2047” document that openly laid out a blueprint for an Islamist takeover of India. To grant bail under the pretext that ideology cannot be punished is to legitimise a manifesto of radical Islamic supremacy.
Downplaying murder of a Hindu leader, legitimising a banned outfit’s plans
It is especially chilling that while PFI is now known to have maintained a hitlist of nearly a thousand targets, including judges, the judiciary has shown leniency to its top operatives. The court did not treat the murder of Sreenivasan as part of a larger jihadist agency but trivialised the killing and repeatedly stressed that “only one person” was killed. Such remarks come dangerously close to dismissing the gravity of the act.
As the deep-rooted conspiracies of the banned Islamist outfit PFI are being unearthed by the NIA, and investigative agencies are putting their lives at risk, the attitude of the judiciary sets a worrying precedent.
Conclusion
As investigators piece together the extent of PFI’s network and its mission of religiously motivated violence, it is critical that courts recognise the layered, conspiratorial nature of such cases. Granting bail on the flawed ground that only one person was killed, or that ideology cannot be punished, sends a dangerous message to the country and weakens the rule of law.
News