High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-03-05Crl.MC petitions dismissed; bail orders of the ...

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Prabha Thomas; Dr. Reba Mary Thomas; Dr. Ria Ann Thomas

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC.No.1070 of 2021 (C); Crl.MC.No.1069 of 2021 (C)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. Somarajan
Judgment Date: 2021-03-05
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.MC.No.1070 of 2021 (C) and Crl.MC.No.1069 of 2021 (C): Crl.M.Cs fail; no interference with the bail orders; regular bail stands granted to accused Nos.2, 4 and 5.
Final Disposition: Crl.MC petitions dismissed; bail orders of the trial court remain intact; no interference with regular bail granted to accused 2, 4, and 5.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

Respondents

Prabha Thomas
Dr. Reba Mary Thomas
Dr. Ria Ann Thomas

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shri P. Vijayakumar, ASG of India

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri C.S. Manu (Adv.)
• ASG P. Vijayakumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment by Justice P. Somarajan, dated 5 March 2021, disposes two criminal miscellaneous petitions (Crl.MC Nos. 1070/2021 and 1069/2021) arising from RC 01(E)/2021 and related FIRs. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenged regular bail granted to accused 2 and 4 (Prabha Thomas and Dr. Reba Mary Thomas) in one matter and to accused 5 (Dr. Ria Ann Thomas) in another. The CBI argued the gravity of alleged malpractice—over 30,000 subscribers defrauded and involving approximately Rs. 1,600 crores—along with a vast, cross-state network, justified denial of bail at a preliminary stage of investigation. The trial court had extended bail after more than six months with stringent conditions, including appearances before the investigating officer every Saturday. The court reviews established bail principles, citing Prahlad Singh Bhati, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, Ram Govind Upadhyay and Puran, and relies on Amarmani Tripathi lineage to articulate the factors guiding bail. It also references Prasanta Kumar Sarkar to underscore the caution required in exercising High Court discretion. While acknowledging the scale of alleged fraud and the slow pace of investigation (three witnesses examined so far), the judge nevertheless finds that the lower court balanced mitigating and aggravating considerations. Consequently, interference is unwarranted and the petitions are dismissed, upholding the bail orders.

Provisions of Law Cited

null

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

There cannot be any hard and fast rule in the matter of grant of regular bail.
Discretion in bail must be exercised judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point.
The factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail include: (i) nature of accusation and severity of punishment; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses; (iii) likelihood of the accused's presence at trial or possibility of abscondence; (iv) character and standing of the accused; (v) larger public or State interest.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

CBI submitted that the gravity of the alleged offences and the scale of the alleged fraud—approximately Rs. 1,600 crores involving more than 30,000 subscribers—justify refusal of regular bail at this early stage, especially since the investigation is at a preliminary stage and a slow pace is evident (three witnesses examined so far). It was submitted that the accused controlled multiple branches across states and that a mere direction to appear before investigators would not curb potential influence over staff or managers. CBI relied on established bail jurisprudence (Prahlad Singh Bhati; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar; Ram Govind Upadhyay; Puran) and drew on Amarmani Tripathi line of decisions, including reliance on paragraph 11 of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar’s judgment, to emphasize judicial discretion with caution and strict compliance with basic principles. It was argued that the gravity, coupled with the scale of the offence, warranted careful scrutiny before granting bail.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that bail is not to be denied by a rigid rule; instead, the court must weigh the circumstances with care. They argued that established bail principles must be applied with discretion and that the trial court’s order granting regular bail balance mitigating and aggravating factors. They highlighted the long detention already undergone (over six months) and the stringent conditions already imposed, including regular appearances before the IO, and urged the High Court not to interfere with the trial court’s exercise of discretion, particularly given the ongoing investigation and the need to avoid unnecessary detention pending trial.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and another	2001 (4) SCC 280	Positive	Cited as part of the five-factor framework guiding bail decisions.
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan and another	2004 (7) SCC 528	Positive	Recognized three core factors governing regular bail.
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh	2002 (3) SCC 598	Positive	Cited for bail considerations in line with established principles.
Puran v. Rambilas	2001 (6) SCC 338	Positive	Referenced in the bail jurisprudence framework.
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and ors.	AIR 2011 SC 274	Positive	Quoted to emphasize the High Court’s duty to exercise discretion judiciously and in accord with established bail principles.
State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi	2005 (8) SCC 21	Positive	Cited as part of the broader bail jurisprudence framework and principles.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Central Bureau of Investigation v. Prabha Thomas; Dr. Reba Mary Thomas; Dr. Ria Ann Thomas and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN** **FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **Crl.MC.No.1070 OF 2021(C)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.MC 296/2021 DATED 16-02-2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-VII, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** ## **CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION** **COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI, COCHIN 682 017.** **BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 2 AND 4/ACCUSED 2 AND 4:** - **1 PRABHA THOMAS W/O.DANNIEL THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT INCHIKATTIL HOUSE, P.O. VAKAYAR, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA 686 698** - **2 DR.REBA MARY THOMAS D/O.DANNIEL THOMAS, AGED 26 YEARS, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT INCHIKATTIL HOUSE, P.O. VAKAYAR, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA 686 698** **R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU** ## **ASG.SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1069/2021(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.1070/2021,Crl.MC.1069/2021 2** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN** **FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1942** **Crl.MC.No.1069 OF 2021(C)** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 297/2021 DATED 16-02-2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VII, ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** **CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI , COCHIN 682 017.** **BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED:** **DR. RIA ANN THOMAS, D/O. THOMAS DANNIEL, AGED 31 YEARS, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT INCHIKKATTIL HOUSE P.O. VAKAYAR, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA 686 698.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU** **ASG, SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1070/2021(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Crl.MC.1070/2021,Crl.MC.1069/2021 3** ## **ORDER** The regular bail granted to accused Nos.2,4 and 5 challenged on the ground that the gravity of the offence alleged would dis-entitle the grant of bail at this juncture, especially when investigation is at the preliminary stage. This court by its judgment dated 23/11/2020 in WP(C) No.18199/2020 handed over the investigation to the 'CBI'. Regular bail was extended to accused Nos.2,4 and 5 after a detention of more than six months. The investigation is going on a slow phase, which is evident from the admission made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the 'CBI' that so far they have examined only three witnesses in connection with the investigation and registration of one FIR. It is _inter alia_ contended that an amount of Rs.1,600 crores involved in the alleged malpractice and the persons who were defrauded comes to more than 30,000. It is also submitted ## **Crl.MC.1070/2021,Crl.MC.1069/2021 4** that they were maintaining several branches in different states in India, and a mere direction to appear before the investigation is not sufficient to check out the chances of their contact with the staff and Manager of the branches. 2. It is well settled that there cannot be any hard and fast rule in the matter of grant of regular bail, but it should be governed by atleast five factors. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: ie., (i). The nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of ## **Crl.MC.1070/2021,Crl.MC.1069/2021 5** the public or the State and similar other considerations ( _**Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and another (2001) 4 SCC 280).**_ 3. The legal position was subsequently reiterated in _**Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan and another (2004 7 SCC 528)**_ , wherein three factors were recognized governing the field of grant of regular bail which are as follows:(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598) and Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338.) 4. The learned counsel for the 'CBI' also relied on the decision drawn in _**Prasanta Kumar**_ _**Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and ors. (AIR 2011 SC**_ _**274)**_ and relied on paragraph 11 of the said judgment, which is extracted below for reference: _“11. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It_ ## **Crl.MC.1070/2021,Crl.MC.1069/2021 6** _is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (v) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. (see: State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi (MANU/SC/0677/2005: (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and Anr. MANU/SC/0193/2001: (2001) 4 SCC 280; Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0203/2002; (2002) 3 SCC 598)._ 5. It is true that there is allegation of involvement of more than 30,000 subscribers in the transaction alleged to have been done by the accused person and involvement of 1,600 crores. It is also brought to the notice of this court that some of the institutions were run by the wife and children without the juncture of the husband. **==> picture [401 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** three witnesses during the period of three months ## **Crl.MC.1070/2021,Crl.MC.1069/2021 7** commencing from 23/11/2020, in connection with the crime would show and tell upon the way in which the investigation is progressing. The fact that they were detained for more than six months in connection with the alleged offence and that they were granted bail subject to strict condition including a condition directing them to appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays, besides the direction to appear as and when required would itself show a proper balance so as to promote justice without affecting the investigation, otherwise, it would be tantamount to punishing the accused person without a trial by ordering further detention. Going by the orders under challenge, I am of the view that the learned designated court had struck a balance in between the mitigating and aggravating circumstances by taking into consideration all relevant aspects and extended bail with stringent condition. Hence, there is no reason for any interference especially when in some other cases bail was granted by this court including the very same persons in bail **Crl.MC.1070/2021,Crl.MC.1069/2021 8** application Nos.9192/2020 and 1213/2021 dated 18/02/2021 and 02/02/2021 respectively. Hence, Crl.M.Cs. fail, dismissed. **Sd/-** **P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE** MSP **Crl.MC.1070/2021,Crl.MC.1069/2021 9** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1070/2021** ## **PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT**| |---|---| ||**IN RC 01(E)/2021**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY**| ||**THE RESPONDENTS.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.2.2021**| ||**OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT**| ||**JUDGE-VII, ERNAKULAM IN CRL.M.C.NO.296 OF**| ||**2021.**| ## **RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:NIL** **Crl.MC.1070/2021,Crl.MC.1069/2021 10** ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1069/2021** ## **PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN RC 01(E)/2021. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.02.021 OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VII, ERNAKULAM IN CRL.M.C. NO. 297 OF 2021.** ## **RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE**