Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50399
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
K.N.Anand Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 11466 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11467 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11468 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11469 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11474 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11475 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11476 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11477 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11479 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11480 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11482 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11483 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11486 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11487 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11488 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11489 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11490 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11491 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11492 of 2025 | Bail Appl. No. 11493 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Annapoorna Devi A, S. Rajeev, Dipa V, M.S. Aneer, V. Vinay, Sarath K, Anilkumar C.R, K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, Raajesh S. Subrahmanian
For the Respondents: Noushad K.A (PP), Prasanth M.P (PP)
The court affirmed the necessity to balance individual liberty against the investigational rights of the police when deciding on bail in non-bailable offences.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420 r/w Section 34 - Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 - Section 3 r/w Section 21(1)(2)(3) - The accused, entangled in multiple cases alleging cheating involving a promise to supply articles at reduced prices, challenged continued detention and sought bail, arguing for the balancing of personal liberty and investigational needs. (Paras 1-3, 11, 12)
(B) Legal Principles for Granting Bail - A court must consider the nature and gravity of accusations, the presence of evidence, and the balance between individual liberty and police inquiry, ensuring the accused is not punished before a finding of guilt. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused in around 500 cases for similar alleged offences, requested bail citing old age and health issues, maintaining that he only facilitated a scheme without personal gain. (Paras 2, 6)
Findings of Court:
Despite the serious nature of allegations, the court noted no risk of flight or evidence tampering, allowing bail under strict conditions to safeguard investigative integrity. (Paras 13, 14)
Issues: Whether the continued custody of the elderly accused is justified amid serious allegations and ongoing investigations.
Ratio Decidendi: Emphasizing the need to balance the presumption of innocence against investigatory demands, the court recognized personal conditions favoring bail for the elderly accused. (Paras 11, 13)
Result: All bail applications granted with specified conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of charges against petitioner (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments from both parties regarding bail (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's consideration of bail application (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. conditions for granting bail (Para 14) |
COMMON ORDER
These bail applications are filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).
2. Petitioner is the accused in various crimes registered in different police stations in the State. The offences alleged against the petitioner in all these cases are almost identical and it includes those under Section 420 r/w Section 3 4 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short, ‘ IPC ’), apart from r/w Section 21 (1)(2)(3), Section 5 r/w Section 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act , 2019 (for short, ‘BUDS Act’). In some of the cases the offences alleged are under Sections 3 16(2), 318(4) r/w (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’) also.
3. The gist of the allegations in all these crimes are also almost similar. The prosecution alleges that the accused, with an intent to cheat the respective defacto complainants, induced them to deposit large amounts of money by promising to supply various articles at half the actual market value, and thereafter, failed to provide the said articles or return the amounts collected from the individual complainants and thereby cheated them and committed the offences alleged.
4. Petitioner is involved in around 500 cases altogether and his arrest was recorded in the first crime on 11.03.2025 and from then on he has been in custody till date. In the present cases, petitioner was arrested on different dates.
5. I have heard Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Noushad K.A., and Sri.Prasanth M.P., the respective learned Public Prosecutors.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the founder and executive director of Sree Satya Sai Orphanage Trust, which is rendering yeoman services all over the State and that he has been at the helm of affairs of various trusts and charitable organizations. According to the learned counsel, while he was rendering such services, he became acquainted with the first accused, who introduced, through his proprietorship concern, a scheme for arranging various equipment for half the price, to be supplied to willing consumers. Several programmes were conducted by the first accused throughout Kerala and petitioner, in his capacity as the Chairman of the National NGO Confederation, participated in such programmes and even explained the scheme. The learned counsel submitted that other than explaining the scheme propounded by the first accused, petitioner has not derived any personal benefit, except for an amount of Rs.1.20 Crores contributed by the first accused towards Sree Satya Sai Orphanage Trust, which was managed by the petitioner as its Executive Director. The learned counsel also submitted that petitioner was initially arrested on 11.03.2025, in other cases, raising allegations of a similar nature. The learned Counsel submitted that the continued detention of the petitioner does not serve any purpose and he ought to be released on bail.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that petitioner is an accused in more than 500 cases all over the State which are now being investigated by the CBCID. It is further submitted that, though, petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2025 in respect of another crime, and that the extent of his involvement can be identified only after the investigation is completed and, hence, the petitioner ought not to be released on bail.
8. I have considered the rival contentions.
9. In an FIR registered as Crime No.877 of 2025 of CBCID, Alappuzha, it was mentioned that the information regarding the alleged offence against the petitioner and other accused were received on 05.02.2025. Petitioner was arrested for some other crimes raising alleg
