IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
Sindhu V. Nair W/o Gopalakrishnan Nair - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
BAIL APPL. 7080, 7070, 7072, 7073, 7074,7076, 7077, 7079, 7082, 7083, 7132, 7134 & 7136 of 2025
Decided On : 09-06-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 420, 120B r/w Section 34 - Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 - Bail applications filed by the petitioner, accused in multiple crimes of a similar nature, seeking regular bail - Petitioner alleged to have conspired to collect deposits unlawfully from complainants, promising high interest rates but failing to return deposits. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - The court considered the petitioner's status as a woman and her duration of judicial custody, previously granting bail in connected matters, leading to the conclusion that no reasons were presented to deny bail in these applications. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused in various crimes involving conspiracy to defraud depositors of a financial institution by promising high returns and failing to honor those promises.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the bail applications, directing the petitioner to be released on bail upon executing a bond with conditions.
Issues: The main issues included the petitioner's eligibility for bail given her previous custody and the nature of the charges against her.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner should be granted bail based on her prior judicial custody and the absence of reasons to deny bail, emphasizing the importance of equal treatment in similar cases.
Result: Applications allowed.
ORDER :
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
These applications are filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”) seeking regular bail.
2. Since petitioner in all these bail applications is the same and as she is an accused in different crimes of a similar nature before various Police Stations, which are now pending investigation with the CBCID, Pathanamthitta, these applications are disposed of by this common order.
3. Petitioner along with other accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Penal Code, 1860 apart from Section 3 r/w Section 21 and Section 5 r/w Section 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. B.A. Nos. 7080, 7070, 7072, 7073, 7074, 7076, 7077, 7079, 7082, 7083, 7132, 7134 and 7136 of 2025, arises out of Crime Nos. 710, 869, 867, 866, 868, 839, 864, 873, 865, 850, 561, 560, and 559 of 2024 respectively and petitioner is the third accused in all the above crimes except in B.A Nos. 7080, 7070, 7072 and 7079 of 2025 where she is the second accused. Petitioner was remanded to judicial custody in some of the crimes on 14.03.2025 and in other crimes on 20.03.2025.
4. The defacto complainants are all depositors of M/s. G & G Financiers, which was earlier known as PRD Nidhi Limited. The prosecution case, which is almost identical in all cases, is that, the accused had with intent to make unlawful gain, conspired with each other and in furtherance of their common intention, collected deposits from the defacto complainants, by falsely promising to pay high rate of interest and thereafter failed to pay any interest and even refused to return the amounts deposited and thereby committed the above offences.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutors.
6. Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.03.2025. Petitioner was arrested in some of the connected crimes as well and by orders in B.A.Nos.4576/2025, 5720/2025 and connected cases, this Court has already enlarged the petitioner on bail, considering that the petitioner is a woman and also considering the fact that she has actually been in judicial custody since 06.02.2025 onwards.
7. Since in similar and connected matters, petitioner has already been directed to be released on bail, and as no reasons are pointed out to avoid extending the benefit of bail in these applications as well, this Court is of the view that petitioner ought to be released on bail in these applications as well.
8. In the result, these applications are allowed by directing the petitioner to be released on bail in the above mentioned crimes on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in each of the crimes, with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court, subject to the following conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed;
(b) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer;
(c) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while she is on bail;
(d) Petitioner shall surrender her passport, if any, before the jurisdictional court and if already surrendered, shall file an affidavit to that effect. If she has no passport, she shall file affidavits to that effect before the jurisdictional court on the date of execution of the bond;
(e) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.
(f) Applications for deletion or modification of the bail conditions can be filed and entertained by the jurisdictional courts.
The court granted bail to the petitioner based on her status as a woman and prior judicial custody, emphasizing equal treatment in similar cases.
The court granted bail to the petitioner based on prior bail decisions in similar cases, emphasizing the need for consistent treatment and the absence of reasons to deny bail.
The court granted bail to the petitioner based on her status as a woman and prior bail decisions in similar cases, emphasizing the need for consistency in judicial treatment.
The court granted bail considering the petitioner's gender, duration of custody, and established legal principles, emphasizing the need for fair treatment in bail applications.
The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering her gender and duration of custody, as no reasons were presented to deny bail.
The court emphasized that previous bail grants in similar cases and the petitioner's prolonged custody warranted the extension of bail, highlighting considerations of gender and judicial consistency.
The court granted bail based on the petitioner's gender and duration of custody, emphasizing the need for fair consideration in bail applications.
Bail is a fundamental right, hinging on the investigation's status and personal liberty, with strict conditions imposed to ensure presence at trial.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; indefinite incarceration is not warranted when similar allegations have previously resulted in bail.
The court emphasized that bail applications require careful consideration of personal liberty against the needs of police investigation and established trust in the accused to adhere to bail conditio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.