Personal liberty vs. investigational rights: Kerala HC grants bail to 70-year-old accused in 500+ cheating cases, citing age and prolonged custody. - 2025-08-31

Kerala High Court Grants Bail to Septuagenarian Accused in Over 500 Cheating Cases

Ernakulam: The High Court of Kerala, in a common order addressing over 100 bail applications, has granted bail to K.N. Anand Kumar, a 70-year-old man accused in more than 500 cases of cheating across the state. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations, emphasized that continued detention was unnecessary, citing the petitioner's age, health conditions, and the period already spent in custody.

---

Background of the Case

The petitioner, K.N. Anand Kumar, is implicated in a massive scheme where numerous individuals were allegedly duped into depositing large sums of money. The prosecution contends that the accused, along with others, promised to supply various articles, such as motorbikes, at half their market price but failed to deliver the goods or refund the money.

The cases, now consolidated under the investigation of the Crime Branch CID (CBCID), involve charges under Section 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and several provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019. Anand Kumar was first arrested in connection with related cases on March 11, 2025, and has remained in judicial custody since.

Arguments in Court

Petitioner's Stance: Advocate S. Rajeev, representing Anand Kumar, argued that his client was merely the founder of a charitable trust and had only explained the scheme—introduced by another accused—in his capacity as the Chairman of the National NGO Confederation. The defense claimed that the petitioner derived no personal benefit, apart from a Rs. 1.20 crore contribution made to his trust. It was submitted that his continued detention, especially given his age and various ailments, served no purpose.

Prosecution's Opposition: The Public Prosecutors strongly opposed the bail pleas, highlighting the vast scale of the alleged fraud, with over 500 cases registered statewide. They argued that the investigation was still in progress and the full extent of the petitioner's involvement was yet to be uncovered. Releasing him at this stage, they contended, would be premature.

Court's Rationale for Granting Bail

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas meticulously balanced the cherished right to personal liberty against the investigational needs of the police. The court observed that an accused should not be detained punitively before a finding of guilt.

"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.

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi , the High Court considered several factors:

• Prolonged Custody: The petitioner has been incarcerated since March 11, 2025.
• Age and Health: The court took into account that the petitioner is a septuagenarian suffering from various ailments.
• Low Flight Risk: There was no indication that the petitioner would flee from justice.
• No Apprehension of Tampering: The court found no reason to believe the petitioner would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Based on these considerations, the court concluded that further detention was not necessary for the investigation.

Final Decision and Bail Conditions

The High Court allowed all the bail applications, directing the release of K.N. Anand Kumar subject to several conditions, including:

1. Executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for each case.
2. In a significant relief, the court, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh , permitted the same sureties to stand for him in all the registered crimes.
3. He must cooperate with the Investigating Officer as required.
4. He is prohibited from leaving India without the court's permission and must not commit similar offenses while on bail.

The court also empowered the jurisdictional court to modify or cancel the bail if any of the conditions are violated.