S.483 BNSS Bail Granted: Kerala HC Cites Parity with Prior Orders for Accused in Multiple Financial Fraud Cases - 2025-05-14

Kerala High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Multiple Financial Fraud Cases, Cites Parity and Supreme Court Precedents

Ernakulam, Kerala – The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A. AbdulHakhim of the Kerala High Court on May 13, 2025, granted regular bail to Ms. Sindhu V. Nair , an accused in a series of financial fraud cases investigated by the CBCID, Pathanamthitta. The decision, delivered in a common order for numerous bail applications including Bail Appl. No. 5720 of 2025, hinged significantly on the principle of parity, as Ms. Nair had previously been granted bail in two similar cases by the same court.

Case Background and Allegations

Ms. Sindhu V. Nair , aged 59, is arrayed as the third accused in a multitude of crimes, including Crime No. 713/2024 and others, registered by the CBCID, Pathanamthitta. The charges involve serious offences under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Additionally , charges under Sections 3 read with Section 21 (offences and penalties related to promoting unregulated deposit schemes) and Section 5 read with Section 23 (offences and penalties related to fraudulent default by deposit takers) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019, have been invoked.

The prosecution alleges that Ms. Nair , in her capacity as the Managing Director of the erstwhile PRDS Nidhi Limited (renamed G&G Financiers), dishonestly induced numerous complainants to deposit substantial amounts. This was done under the promise of a high interest rate of 15.5% and the assurance that the principal amounts would be returned whenever demanded. However, the accused allegedly failed to honor these commitments, leading to the registration of multiple criminal cases. Ms. Nair was arrested in connection with these crimes on February 6, 2025, and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.

Arguments Before the Court

The bail applications were filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Petitioner's Submissions: Advocate Sri. Ajeesh K. Sasi, representing Ms. Nair (whose legal team includes Senior Advocate Sri. P. Vijaya Bhanu), argued that the applicant had already been granted bail by the High Court in two other cases (B.A. Nos. 4576/2025 and 5293/2025) involving identical allegations. The counsel emphasized Ms. Nair 's willingness to comply with any conditions imposed by the court for her release.

Prosecution's Stance: The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, Smt. Seetha S., confirmed to the court that Ms. Nair had indeed been granted bail in two similar cases with the same set of allegations and offences.

Court's Reasoning and Reliance on Precedent

Justice Hakhim , in his order, noted that the applicant had been in custody since February 6, 2025, for the current set of crimes. The court extensively relied on its own prior orders dated April 4, 2025 (B.A. Appl No.4576/2025) and April 11, 2025 (B.A. Appl No.5293/2025), which had granted bail to Ms. Nair in other similar cases.

The court recalled that these previous bail orders had referred to and reiterated the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in landmark cases such as: * Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870] * Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6431] * Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426]

These Supreme Court judgments underscore the fundamental principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception." While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, the High Court, in its previous orders, had found that indefinite incarceration of the applicant was not necessary.

Applying this established legal position, Justice Hakhim stated: > "In the present Crimes, the very same set of allegations and offences is involved. The custody of the applicant is from 06.02.2025. Since the applicant is granted bail by this Court in the aforesaid B.A. Appl. No.4576/2025 and B.A. Appl. No.5293/2025, I am bound to follow the said orders. Hence, I find that the applicant is entitled to bail in these bail applications also on the very set of conditions as those included in the aforesaid bail orders."

The court also noted that the principle laid down by the High Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] would be applicable.

The Decision: Bail Granted with Conditions

Concluding that Ms. Nair was entitled to bail, the High Court allowed the bail applications subject to the following conditions:

Bond : The applicant shall be released on bail upon 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 jurisdictional Court.

Cooperation with Investigation : The applicant must appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required, cooperate fully with the investigation, and refrain from directly or indirectly making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

Travel Restrictions : The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission from the jurisdictional Court.

No Similar Offences : The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the one she is accused or suspected of.

Observational Clause : The observations and findings in the bail order are solely for the purpose of deciding the bail applications.

Bail Cancellation : If any of the conditions are violated, the jurisdictional Court is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law, even though granted by the High Court. The prosecution and the victims are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for bail cancellation in case of any violation.

This ruling underscores the importance of parity in judicial decision-making and reiterates the "bail is rule" doctrine, balancing the interests of the investigation with the liberty of the individual, even in cases involving significant financial allegations.