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) 57688

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
VYSAKHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 13734 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN, SMT.SHAMSEERA, C.ASHRAF, SHRI.WINSTON K.V, SMT.ANU JACOB, SMT.ANJANA KRISHNAN
For the Respondents: SRI.M.C. ASHI, SMT.RIZWANA A.A., SHRI.AQIB SOHAIL P.S.

Bail granted due to time served and other bail grants, despite serious allegations of financial misconduct.

Headnote:This bail application was filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the petitioner being the first accused in Crime No.1168/2025. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner collected deposits from the complainant and failed to repay, leading to charges under the IPC and Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. Considering the time already served in custody since October 29, 2025, and previous bail grants in other cases, the court found further detention unnecessary. The petitioner is entitled to bail under specific conditions. The final order allows bail with specific conditions.

Table of Content
1. allegations involve collection and non-repayment of deposits. (Para 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's time in custody and previous bail decisions considered. (Para 4 , 6)
3. bail granted under specified conditions. (Para 8)

ORDER

This bail application is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1168/2025 of Vadakkencherry Police Station, Palakkad District, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 4 06 and 420 r/w Section 3 4 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’), apart from r/w Section 21 , Section 4 r/w Section 22 , Section 5 r/w Section 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short ‘BUDS Act’).

3. According to the prosecution, the first accused, who is the Managing Director of the financial institution by the name Finspot India Nidhi Limited, had collected Rs. 78.5 lakhs from the de facto complainant as a deposit, promising to repay the same with interest, and thereafter failed to repay the amount, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Petitioner was arrested in connection with another similar crime on 04.10.2025, and in the instant case, his formal arrest was recorded on 29.10.2025, and has been in custody since then.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.10.2025 in this case and hence he ought to be released on bail.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

8. Petitioner is involved in several crimes, all of similar allegations. He is alleged to have collected deposits from the public without authority and failed to repay the same, including interest. Though the allegations are serious, considering the fact that petitioner has been in custody since 29.10.2025 in this case, and further that he has been granted bail in most of the other cases, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not necessary. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

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

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this 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