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.

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 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 and 5,4,23, 3 and 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act , 2019. B.A.Nos.6847/2025, 6800/2025, 6801/2025, 6802/2025, 6805/2025, 6808/2025, 6846/2025, 6848/2025, 6849/2025, 6852/2025, 6853/2025, 6855/2025 & 6857/2025, arises out of Crime Nos. 872, 849, 848, 847, 846, 845, 569, 842, 871, 570, 870, 833 and 569 of 2024 respectively, and petitioner is the 2^nd accused in B.A.Nos. 6849 & 6853 of 2025 and she is the 3^rd accused in all other bail applications. Petitioner was arrested in all the above cases on 14.03.2025 except in B.A.No.6846 of 2025, 6853 of 2025 and 6852 of 2025, in which petitioner was arrested on 20.03.2025.

4. The defaco 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 Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutors.

6. Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 06.02.2025. 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 the fact that the petitioner is a woman and also considering the fact that she has actually been in judicial custody since 06.02.2025 onwards. The principles laid down in the decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC Online SC 1920], was relied upon to direct the petitioner to be released on bail.

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:

(i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed;

(ii) 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;

(iii) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while she is on bail;

(iv) 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;

(v) 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 f