Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
Madhu Jayakumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 175 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sruthy N. Bhat, P.M.Rafiq, Ajeesh K.Sasi, Sruthy K.K, Aaron Zacharias Benny, K.Aravind Menon, Sona Maria Biju, Amrin Fathima, P.Vijayabhanu
For the Respondents: O.M.Shalina
The court established that the principle of parity is a significant factor in bail adjudication, particularly when investigation is complete and co-accused have been granted bail, provided that appropriate stringent conditions are imposed to mitigate risks of abscondence.
Headnote:The present appeal arises from an order passed by the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, rejecting a bail application filed under S. 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The appellant, charged with offences including criminal conspiracy and cheating under the Indian Penal Code, was alleged to be the kingpin of an organ trafficking racket involving illegal kidney transplantation. Upon review, the Court noted that other co-accused had already been enlarged on bail and that the investigation was complete, with the charge sheet already filed. The core issue before the Court was whether the appellant, despite the gravity of the allegations, was entitled to release on bail based on the principle of parity and the current status of the investigation. The Court determined that since the other accused persons were granted bail and the appellant had been in custody for over six months, further incarceration was unnecessary. The Court emphasized that there were no statutory bars to granting bail under the applicable sections of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order rejecting the bail application is set aside, with the appellant being granted bail subject to stringent conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background involving bail application and nature of alleged offences. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments focusing on parity and risk of prosecution. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court determination regarding bail grant based on parity and conditions. (Para 7 , 9) |
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
In this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the Special Court for Trial of NIA Cases, Kerala, Ernakulam under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 rejecting the application for bail. The appellant is accused No.1 in the above case, which is registered for offences punishable under Section 120B, 370, 465, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution alleges that the accused persons including the appellant hatched a criminal conspiracy and thereby transported certain persons to Iran for illegal organ trade by deceiving them and in the said process, they forged documents and used them as original. It is further alleged that the appellant, the kingpin of the crime, through his contacts identified certain persons suffering from kidney diseases and promised them to facilitate kidney transplantation by arranging donors and thereby collected huge amounts from them, with the help of the other accused persons.
3. The National Investigation Agency filed a final report against the accused persons including the appellant. It was reported that the appellant was absconding. However, he was arrested on 07.11.2025 at Cochin International Airport on his arrival from Iran and thereafter he has been in judicial custody.
4. We have heard Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt.O.M.Shalina, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the National Investigation Agency.
5. The appellant vehemently contended that he is absolutely innocent and he was falsely foisted in the case. Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court has granted bail to all other accused persons and hence, the appellant is also entitled to get a parity of treatment.
6. The above contention is stoutly resisted by the National Investigation Agency citing that sufficient materials have been collected during the investigation to establish the guilt of the appellant. Smt.Shalina, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent, submitted that the gravity of the offences and the chances of abscondence of the appellant are to be weighed by this court while considering the application for bail.
7. On evaluation of the materials placed before us, we are of the view that there are no reasons to deny bail to the appellant, especially when all other accused persons are already enlarged on bail. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under the Indian Penal Code and thus there is no statutory restriction in granting bail. The appellant has been in judicial custody for the last more than six months. He is already charge-sheeted and the agency has taken him in police custody. Thus, there is no purpose in compelling the appellant to undergo further incarceration. 8. However, considering the gravity of offence alleged against the appellant and the anxiety expressed by the Deputy Solicitor General of India as to the chance of abscondence of the appellant, bail can be granted only on stringent conditions.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. We allow the bail application filed by the appellant on the following conditions:
1)The appellant shall execute a bond for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) along with two solvent sureties for the like sum.
2)If the appellant possesses a passport, he shall surrender it before the trial court within two weeks. If not, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within the said period before the trial court. The passport, if produced, shall be kept in safe custody.
3)The appellant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of
