Sindhu V. Nair v. State of Kerala

BA No.4576 of 2025 1 ``` 2025:KER:29134 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 4576 OF 2025`** ``` CRIME NO.715/2024 OF CBCID, KOLLAM, Kollam ``` ``` PETITIONER( S )/3RD ACCUSED: SINDHU V. NAIR AGED 59 YEARS, W/O GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,SREERAMA SADANAM,THELLLIYOOR.P.O, PATHNAMTHITTA, PIN – 689 544 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P VIJAYABHANU,SR AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY P.M.RAFIQ M.REVIKRISHNAN AJEESH K.SASI SRUTHY N. BHAT RAHUL SUNIL SRUTHY K.K SOHAIL AHAMMED HARRIS P.P. NANDITHA S. K.ARAVIND MENON ``` ## **`RESPONDENT( S )/RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`BY ADV.:`** ## **`PP-G SUDHEER`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` BA No.4576 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29134` **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------BA No.4576 of 2025 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 04[th] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 2. The petitioner is the 3[rd] accused in Crime No.715/2024 of CBCID, Kollam (earlier Crime No.447/2024 of Koipuram Police Station). The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B r/w 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 r/w 21 & 5 r/w 23 of the BUDS Act. BA No.4576 of 2025 3 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29134 ``` 3. The prosecution case is that, the accused being the Managing Directors of erstwhile PRDS Nidhi Limited which is renamed as G & G Financiers, dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs on two occasions by offering huge interest. It is alleged that the accused failed to return the amount with interest. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. The petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2025. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 07.02.2025. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this BA No.4576 of 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29134 ``` Court, if this Court grants her bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But, the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody from 07.02.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. 8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Chidambaram. P v. Directorate of**_ _**Enforcement** [2019 (16) SCALE 870],_ after BA No.4576 of 2025 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29134 ``` considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. ## 9. Moreover, in _**Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India** [2024 KHC 6431],_ the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: “21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, BA No.4576 of 2025 6 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29134` the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modifcation that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfed. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Art.21 of our Constitution.” (underline supplied) ## 10. In _**Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of**_ ## _**Enforcement**_ [2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble ## Supreme Court observed that: “53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well - settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our BA No.4576 of 2025 7 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:29134` experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non - grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".” Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions: _1. Petitioner shall be released on bail_ _on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the_ BA No.4576 of 2025 8 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29134 ``` _like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court._ _2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer._ _3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court._ BA No.4576 of 2025 9 ``` 2025:KER:29134 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** _4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected._ _5. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of_ _deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in_ _**Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala** [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also._ _6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance_ `w` _ith law, even_ BA No.4576 of 2025 10 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:29134 ``` _though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of_ _the above condition._ **Sd/-** nvj **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**