Personal Liberty vs. Investigational Right: Kerala High Court Grants Bail to Septuagenarian Accused in 500+ Cheating Cases, Citing Prolonged Custody - 2025-09-28

Kerala High Court Grants Bail to 70-Year-Old Accused in Over 500 Cheating Cases

KOCHI: In a significant order balancing individual liberty with the rights of investigation, the Kerala High Court on Friday granted bail to K.N. Anand Kumar, a 70-year-old man facing allegations in over 500 cheating cases across the state. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ruled that the petitioner's continued detention was unnecessary, considering his age, health, and the six months he has already spent in custody.

The court was hearing a batch of 20 bail applications filed by Anand Kumar, who has been in judicial custody since March 11, 2025, in connection with numerous similar allegations.

Background of the Case

The prosecution alleges that Anand Kumar was involved in a widespread scheme that duped hundreds of individuals. The modus operandi was to induce people to deposit large sums of money by promising to deliver various articles, such as motorbikes, at half their market value. The accused allegedly failed to provide the goods or refund the money, leading to charges under Section 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code and the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019.

The cases, initially registered at various police stations, are now being investigated by the Crime Branch-CID (CBCID) of the Kerala Police.

Arguments in Court

Petitioner's Counsel, Sri. S. Rajeev, argued: * Anand Kumar is the founder of the Sree Satya Sai Orphanage Trust and has a background in charitable work. * The scheme was devised and promoted by the first accused, and Anand Kumar's role was limited to explaining it at events in his capacity as Chairman of the National NGO Confederation. * He claimed to have received no personal financial benefit, apart from a Rs. 1.20 Crore donation made by the primary accused to his trust. * Given his prolonged custody since March 2025, his continued incarceration serves no purpose.

The Public Prosecutor contended: * The petitioner is a key accused in more than 500 cases, indicating the large scale of the alleged fraud. * The investigation is complex and ongoing, and releasing the petitioner at this stage could be premature as the full extent of his involvement is yet to be determined.

Court's Reasoning: Balancing Liberty and Investigation

Justice Thomas, in his common order, acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations but emphasized the cherished right to personal liberty. The court observed that an accused should not be detained as a form of pre-trial punishment.

"Courts must always bear in mind that an accused ought not to be detained in custody with the object of punishing him, as punishment is always the consequence of a finding of guilt," the judgment noted.

The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi , which lays down the principles for granting bail, including the nature of the accusation, the character of the accused, and the larger interest of the public.

Applying these principles, Justice Thomas concluded that further detention was not warranted. The court highlighted several key factors in its decision: * The petitioner is a septuagenarian with various health ailments. * He has been in continuous custody for six months since his initial arrest on March 11, 2025. * There is no perceived risk of him fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.

The Final Verdict and Conditions

The High Court allowed all 20 bail applications, directing Anand Kumar's release on the execution of a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties for each case. In a significant relief, the court, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh , permitted the same two individuals to stand as sureties across all the cases.

The bail is subject to several conditions, including cooperating with the investigation, not influencing witnesses, not committing similar offences, and not leaving the country without court permission.