SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53358

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
VINOD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 13806 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.771/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SARATH M.S.
For the Respondents: SRI.E.C.BINEESH-SR.Public Prosecutor

The court held that prolonged detention without basis warrants bail, emphasizing insufficient evidence linking the accused to the alleged offense.

Headnote:The applicant seeks bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after being accused in a case involving fraudulent fixed deposits from complainants. The court finds insufficient evidence connecting the applicant to the crime and recognizes the prolonged detention of the applicant as unwarranted. Critical issues included claims of false implication and lack of material evidence. The court grants bail while imposing certain conditions to ensure cooperation with the ongoing investigation.

Table of Content
1. bail application filed under section 483. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented for both sides regarding bail. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's decision to grant bail with conditions. (Para 6)

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail.

2. The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.771/2024 of Kongad Police Station, Palakkad. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 318(4) of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 and Section 4 read with Section 22 of the BUDS Act .

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant along with two other accused being the Directors of finance company by name Sreepura Dhanam Nidhi Ltd. at Keralassery, promised and made believe to the defacto complainant that if fixed deposits are made, they will give 9% interest per annum. They collected 2,42,000/- from the defacto complainant as fixed deposit. But did not pay any amount as interest or the principal amount even after maturity.

4. I have heard Sri.Sarath M.S., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to get bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6. The applicant was arrested on 30.09.2025 and he is in judicial custody. The investigation is almost over. It is true that the applicant has criminal antecedents. He is involved in seven other crimes. However, the fact remains that the investigation is almost over and he has been in custody for more than 60 days. Hence, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. on every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top