Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1161 (KER)

Sindhu. v. Nair VS State of Kerala

2025-05-13

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

body2025
ORDER : M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J. 1. These are Applications for regular bail filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023. The Applicant in all these applications is the third accused in Crime Nos.713, 887, 886, 1165, 895, 899, 896, 897, 900, 1158, 1191, 1161, 884, 1208, 1156, 1168, 1172, 880, 885, 1164, 877, 888, 898, 712, 1162, 1169, 1177, 1182, 1173, 1188, 883, 906, 876, 1181, 1160, 739, 1189, 905, 882, 1179, 1201, 1163, 1157, 1180, 901, 1207, 894, 893, 892, 891, 890, 1167, 1159, 878, 1166, 904, 1190, 881, 903, 879, 742 and 741 of 2024 of CBCID, Pathanamthitta, registered under Sections 409 , 420 , 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 and Sections 3 read with Section 21 and Section 5 read with Section 23 of the BUDS Act , 2019 which includes non-bailable offences. The Applicant was arrested on 06.02.2025 for these Crimes. 2. On production before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the Applicant was remanded to judicial custody. 3. The allegations against the Applicant are that the accused being the Managing Director of erstwhile PRDS Nidhi Limited which is renamed as G&G Financiers, dishonestly induced the de facto complainants in these Crimes to deposit various amounts on promise to pay 15.5% interest and to return the amounts whenever demanded; that the accused failed to return the amounts with interest. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the Applicant, Sri. Ajeesh K. Sasi and the learned Public Prosecutor, Smt. Seetha S. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is granted bail in two crimes with the same allegations by this Court in B.A. Nos. 4576 and 5293 of 2025. The counsel further submitted that the applicant is ready to abide by any condition if this Court grants her bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor also confirmed that the applicant was granted bail by this Court in two identical Crimes with the same set of allegations and offences. 7. The order of this Court in B.A. Appl No.4576/2025 is dated 04.04.2025, and the order of this Court in B.A. Appl No.5293/2025 is dated 11.04.2025. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor also confirmed that the applicant was granted bail by this Court in two identical Crimes with the same set of allegations and offences. 7. The order of this Court in B.A. Appl No.4576/2025 is dated 04.04.2025, and the order of this Court in B.A. Appl No.5293/2025 is dated 11.04.2025. In both the orders, this Court relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement , [ 2019 (16) SCALE 870 ] , Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, [ 2024 KHC 6431 ] and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, [2024 KHC 6426] and reiterated the principle laid down therein that bail is rule and jail is exception to grant bail to the applicant. This Court found that the allegation against the applicant is serious; that the applicant has been in custody since 07.02.2025, and that indefinite incarceration of the applicant is not necessary. In the present Crimes, the very same set of allegations and offences is involved. The custody of the applicant is from 06.02.2025. Since the applicant is granted bail by this Court in the aforesaid B.A. Appl. No.4576/2025 and B.A. Appl. No.5293/2025, I am bound to follow the said orders. Hence, I find that the applicant is entitled to bail in these bail applications also on the very set of conditions as those included in the aforesaid bail orders. 8. Hence, these bail applications are allowed subject to the conditions as follows: 1. The applicant shall be released on bail, on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. Applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. The Applicant shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. The Applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused or suspected of the commission of which she is suspected. 5. The observations and findings in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. 3. The Applicant shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. The Applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused or suspected of the commission of which she is suspected. 5. The observations and findings in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in these cases also. 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the applicant, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance with law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail if there is any violation of the above condition.