The Kerala High Court issued a stay on Wednesday regarding a trial court's decision to discharge K Surendran, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) State President, in a case involving election bribery.

Surendran faces allegations of threatening and bribing K Sundara, a candidate from the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), during the 2021 Kerala Legislative Assembly Elections for the Manjeswaram constituency.

Justice K Babu has directed Surendran to respond to a revision petition filed by the State government, challenging the discharge order made by the Kasargode Sessions Court.

According to the prosecution, while contesting the election as the BJP candidate for Manjeswaram, Surendran allegedly coerced Sundara into withdrawing from the race. It is claimed that Surendran and other accused individuals threatened Sundara and subsequently bribed him with ₹2.5 lakh and a mobile phone valued at ₹8,300 in March 2021.

Sundara ultimately withdrew his candidacy, with elections taking place in April 2021. Surendran lost the election to Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) candidate AKM Ashraf by a narrow margin.

Following a private complaint lodged by the Left Democratic Front (LDF) candidate from the same constituency, an FIR was registered against Surendran and others. The charges against him include violations of Sections 171(E) (bribery), 171(B) (election bribery), 342 (wrongful confinement), 506(i) (criminal intimidation), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, he faces charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, given that Sundara belongs to a Scheduled Caste community.

Surendran subsequently filed a petition to be discharged from the case, asserting that the allegations were unfounded and politically motivated. He also argued that the cognizance of the election offences was taken after the limitation period had expired.

The Sessions Court granted Surendran's discharge application, stating that the elements required to establish the charges of criminal intimidation and wrongful confinement were lacking. The court also noted that while there was sufficient evidence to frame charges for election bribery, it lacked the authority to do so post the limitation period.

In response, the State filed a criminal revision petition, contesting the Sessions Court's ruling. The State contends that the lower court improperly relied on a witness statement made before the FIR was filed, citing Supreme Court precedents that prohibit the defense's case from being considered at the charge-framing stage.

The petition argues, "The court below exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 227 of the CRPC and conducted a mini-trial based on unproven materials... Evaluating the existence of sufficient grounds does not equate to conducting a trial of the accused."

Furthermore, the State asserts that the evidence presented is adequate to warrant a trial, arguing that the limitation period for cognizance of election offences does not apply in this instance, as other cognizable offences are also involved