Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
K.N.ANAND KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 13491 OF 2025 | BAIL APPL. NO. 13477 OF 2025 | BAIL APPL. NO. 13479 OF 2025 | BAIL APPL. NO. 13484 OF 2025 | BAIL APPL. NO. 13486 OF 2025 | BAIL APPL. NO. 13487 OF 2025 | BAIL APPL. NO. 13490 OF 2025 | BAIL APPL. NO. 13492 OF 2025 | BAIL APPL. NO. 13656 OF 2025 | BAIL APPL. NO. 13658 OF 2025 | BAIL APPL. NO. 13663 OF 2025 | BAIL APPL. NO. 13671 OF 2025 | BAIL APPL. NO. 13677 OF 2025 | BAIL APPL. NO. 13489 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN, SRI.S.RAJEEV, SRI.V.VINAY, SRI.M.S.ANEER, SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R., SMT.ANNAPOORNA DEVI A., SMT.DIPA V.
For the Respondents: SRI.M C ASHI, SR PP, SRI.G SUDHEER PP, SMT.M K PUSHPALATHA, SR PP

Bail is a fundamental right emphasizing personal liberty, especially for aged individuals without criminal intent. Courts must balance public safety and individual rights in granting bail.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 318(4), 316(2), 3(5) - Bail applications - Applicant charged with cheating multiple complainants by inducing them to invest in overpriced goods with deceitful guarantees of supply - Judicial custody lasting over seven months - Principle upholding personal liberty and the presumption of innocence highlighted, emphasizing that bail should be granted unless continuing custody serves a necessary purpose. (Paras 11, 12, 13)

(B) Bail - Guidelines for granting bail - Emphasized that bail is a right, not a privilege; court weighs the severity of the accusation against the individual’s liberty; relevance of the accused's age and involvement in community service considered. (Paras 14)

Facts of the case:
The applicant has been accused of cheating across numerous cases under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He has been in custody since March 2025, charged with inducing depositors into schemes falsely promising goods at discounted rates.

Findings of Court:
Applicant granted bail under specific conditions, ensuring participation in the investigation process and protecting witness integrity.

Issues: The necessity of judicial custody against the backdrop of the applicant's age, his civil activities, and lack of criminal intent were central to the decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts must balance personal liberty against public interest, applying a humane approach towards elderly accused without a history of criminal intent.

Result: Bail applications granted, under specified conditions.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments from both parties (Para 6 , 7 , 9)
3. court's observations on bail principles (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. conclusion and bail decision (Para 15)

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 SRI.G SUDHEER, PP K.BABU, J.

--------------------------------------

B.A Nos.13491, 13495, 13490, 13489, 13492, 13677, 13671, 13656, 13658, 13663, 13484, 13486, 13487, 13477, 13479 of 2025 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24^th day of November, 2025 O R D E R These applications are filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023.

2. The petitioner is the accused in a series of crimes registered in different police stations in the State. The offences alleged against the petitioner in the cases under consideration is punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

3. The prosecution case is as follows:

The petitioner and the other accused with intent to cheat the defacto complainants, induced them to deposit large amounts of money by promising to supply various articles at half the actual market value. The petitioner and the other accused failed to provide the said articles as agreed and thereby obtained wrongful gain causing wrongful loss to the respective defacto complainants.

4. The petitioner was arrested in around 500 cases. He was arrested on 11.03.2025 in the first crime. He has been in judicial custody since then.

5. In the present crimes, the petitioner’s arrest was recorded on 22.10.2025, 30.10.2025 and 10.11.2025.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no involvement in the offences alleged. According to the petitioner, he was managing various Trusts and charitable organizations. In the service to the society, he got acquainted with accused No.1, who introduced, through his proprietorship concern, a scheme for arranging various products at half the price, to be supplied to the prospective consumers. Various programmes were conducted by accused No.1 throughout Kerala. The petitioner, in his capacity as the Chairman of the National NGO Confederation, participated in such programmes and with bonafide intention explained the scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no ill motive and only with the intention of serving the society, he happened to participate in some of the programmes coordinated by accused No.1 and with good intention he explained programmes introduced by accused No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no criminal intention in any of the acts he allegedly committed. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation in these series of crimes is done by the CBCID. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that apart from the offences alleged in the present crimes, during the course of investigation, offences under the BUDS Act were also revealed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that release of the petitioner at this stage will affect the progress of the investigation.

9. I have gone through the rival contentions. The specific case of the petitioner is that he never developed any mens rea in the acts allegedly committed. The petitioner is aged 71 years. It is contended that he had been actively involving in many social service activities.

It is submitted that he has no direct knowledge regarding the elements of conspiracy allegedly revealed in the various cases.

The petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than 7 months.

10. The petitioner was granted bail in as many as 688 cases by this Court on the ground that the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted.

11. The principle that bail is the rule and jail i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53191

Bail is a fundamental right emphasizing personal liberty, especially for aged individuals without criminal intent. Courts must balance public safety and individual rights in granting bail.

Cases Referred (3)