This intra-court writ appeal (WA No.621 of 2025) arises from a contempt proceedings in which a learned Single Judge had held that there was substantial compliance with the directions in the judgment dated 20.09.2023 in W.P.(C) No.24403 of 2023 and the related contempt in Cont.Case(C) No.119 of 2024, with the contempt case closed by order dated 15.01.2025. The appellants contended that the computation of Provident Fund closure and Staff Welfare Fund payments, along with statutory interest, did not strictly conform to the court’s directions, despite an affidavit dated 16.12.2024 detailing payments. The respondents argued substantial compliance and initiated a legal discussion on the maintainability of appeals under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and intra‑court appeals under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, referencing a body of case law including Midnapore Peoples’ Co. Op. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda and subsequent Kerala and Supreme Court authorities. The judgment traces the applicable law (Section 19, Rule 14(b), Article 136), analyzes when a contempt order can be challenged, and ultimately concludes that the writ appeal is not maintainable, dismissing the appeal in that ground. The bench comprises two judges, Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S., constituting a Division Bench.
Four teachers, Sareena S. Pillai, R. Suja, S. Bindhu, and D.S. Deepakumary, challenged non-approval of their appointments at Amrita Sanskrit Higher Secondary School, Paripally, Kollam, seeking approval from the date of appointment and disbursement of consequential benefits. They were appointed against anticipated posts during a period when a ban on appointments to additional division vacancies prevailed under GO (P) 317/2005, and later the ban was lifted by GO (P) 10/10/G.Edn (12.01.2010) subject to conditions. One key condition required managers to execute a bond ensuring that protected teachers equal to the number of appointments made during the ban period would be appointed; GO 199/2011/G.Edn provided a comprehensive teachers’ package for deployed/protected teachers. The petitioners rely on judgments like State of Kerala and Ors. v. V.S. Suma Devi and Ors (W.A. No. 2111/2015) to argue that bonds need not be strictly executed in every case and that, upon approval, they should be deemed to have been executed. The Government contends that all appointments in additional division vacancies are to be apportioned 1:1 and that bonds must be executed, with some managers challenging GO 10/10 before the Supreme Court. The High Court disposes of the petition with directions to consider revision petitions P16–P19, deem bonds executed if conditions are met, and to make appointments from the protected list in parity with the ban period, subject to Apex Court orders. The petition is disposed of.
WP(C) No.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These batch writ petitions challenge Government Order G.O.(MS.) No.121/2022/G.Edn dated 7.7.2022 and the Plus One admission prospectus, affecting the management quota in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala. The petitioners, representing school Managers, contended that the order reducing management quota to 20% and the accompanying mandate to declare the community of the management and allot 10% seats to that community on merit violate Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and undermine the open-merit principle. They argued there is no vested right to a 30% management quota and that the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP) should govern admissions on merit. The State argued that the policy aims to cure irregularities and ensure merit-based admissions, justifying the reduction in management quota and the community-quotas as executive policy. It relied on older GO orders and cases to justify continuity of policy and the need to harmonize quotas across institutions. The Court, while upholding the 20% management quota, struck down the 10% community quota as unconstitutional, holding it violative of Articles 14 and 15. The 10% seats are to be treated as open-merit seats and filled through CAP. Admissions already carried out under community declarations are not to be disturbed. The petitions are disposed of accordingly, with judicial restraint on policy questions in the realm of executive decisions.
On 2 August 2023, the Kerala High Court heard a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by Shafeeq, Anas, Muhammed Faisal and Nisam in CrL MC No. 5454 of 2023, challenging proceedings in SC No. 960 of 2017 arising from Crime No. 836 of 2016 before the Assistant Sessions Court (Sub Court), Thalassery, for offences punishable under IPC Sections 448, 323, 324, 308 and 341 r/w 34. The prosecution alleged that on 21 June 2016, the accused, in furtherance of a common intention, trespassed into the shoproom of the complainant and assaulted him, causing injuries. The petitioners’ counsel contended that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution; an affidavit from the complainant supports withdrawal. The Public Prosecutor, while expressing reservations about quashing a criminal case, noted there are no other serious crimes by the petitioners and that the complainant states no lasting grievance. The court reviewed authorities including State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan; Gian Singh; Narinder Singh, and observed that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences can be exercised where the dispute is civil in character, the parties have resolved it, and the continued prosecution would not serve public interest. It also emphasized scrutiny of antecedents and gravity where offences involve serious harm. Having examined these factors, the court found that quashing would not adversely affect society, and allowed the petition, quashing the final report and all further proceedings in the underlying case.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from Crime No.103/2021 of Kuthuparamba Police Station and CC 671/2021 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba. The petitioners/accused (Nos.1 to 16) sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., following a settlement with the victims. The victims submitted affidavits expressing no objection to quashing, and the then Principal of MES College, as de facto complainant, was impleaded as a respondent. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded that the dispute had been settled. The court examined the law on quashing non-compoundable offences under 482, particularly as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan (2019) and the cited decisions Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, and held that private disputes of a civil or domestic nature and their resolution among parties can justify quashing non-compoundable offences, provided the offences are not heinous or covered by special statutes. After considering the facts, the court found the dispute private in nature and the settlement acceptable, leading to the quashing of all further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.671/2021. The order emphasizes that settlements should be weighed against the nature of the offence and public interest.
The petitioner, Dominic David, challenges an order canceling his GST registration under the CGST/SGST Acts after a show cause notice for failure to file returns for six months. The notice, Ext.P1, was issued in Form GST REG-31 (a form for suspension) rather than a notice under Rule 21 of the CGST Rules for cancellation, and it failed to specify the exact default. Ext.P2 (05-05-2022) cancelled the registration, and Ext.P3 (06-09-2022) by the Appellate Authority held that it had no power to interfere with a cancellation under Section 29 and that revocation under Section 30 had to be pursued within the time limit. The petitioner argued that the appellate authority’s power is co-extensive with the original authority and that the use of the word ‘may’ in Section 30 is directory, not mandatory. He relied on various authorities including Kanpur Coral Syndicate, Dhampur Sugal Mills, Vijaya Mohini Mills, and Baker Re, Nichols. The High Court found the show cause notice vague and deficient in form, and rejected the revenue-centric rigidity, citing Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing and Sing Traders. It held that the procedure in cancellation matters must conform to statutory requirements, and that the notice cannot be treated as a valid cancellation proceeding. The writ petition was allowed; Ext.P2 was quashed, but the court cautioned that the quashing does not absolve fiscal liability, directing the petitioner to file all defaulted returns with tax, interest, penalties, etc., within two weeks of restoration of registration.
This intra-court appeal concerns Exts. P-1 and P-2, issued by the Part-Time Administrator of the Adat Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., directing 4,464 members (including the two writ petitioners) to explain why they should not be removed from the membership rolls on grounds that their enrolment occurred during 2011–2014. The learned Single Judge held that membership in a co-operative society is a personal right and that removal under Rule 16(3) requires individualized notice and an opportunity to be heard; he quashed Exts. P-1 and P-2 as violative of law and held that an Administrator cannot grant membership, outside the proper democratic process. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, disagreed on several key points. It held that, while membership is indeed a personal right, the law recognises that an Administrator or an Administrative Committee may initiate removal of members who were admitted by a previous administrator if such admission was contrary to law, by following Rule 16(3) and related safeguards. The court emphasized that the right to challenge such removals rests with the affected member, and that the proceedings against the broader group of 4,462 other members require separate, proper recourse. The judgment stresses democratic governance, the limits of administrator power, and the necessity of due process in membership removals, rebalancing control between democratic processes and administrative action.
W.P.(C) Nos.16208/2012, 16250/2012, 16261/2012, 16281/2012 & 16283/2012 These connected writ petitions, filed in 2012, challenge government actions and regulatory decisions affecting the practice and registration of Ayurvedic and Unani medicine practitioners, including the Travancore Cochin Medical Council and oversight by the Central Council of Indian Medicine. The petitions were filed by five doctors: Dr. Madhusoodanan (WP 16208), Dr. K.R. Saji (WP 16250), Dr. M.S. Sreeraj Sreenivas (WP 16261), Dr. E.S. Srimanikandas (WP 16281) and Dr. T.M. Vishnudasan (WP 16283). The respondents include the State of Kerala, the Travancore-Cochn Medical Councils, the Central Council of Indian Medicine, and the Union of India. On admission, both sides submitted that the central issue was settled by a prior decision of this Court in Central Council of Indian Medicine and others v. State of Kerala and others (2020 KHC 759). Relying on that authority, the learned Judge dismissed the petitions. The order states that if the petitioners have any other grievance, the same is left open, but no relief is granted. Exhibits (P1–P16) reflect various GO/Notices and registrations relevant to the petitions and the regulatory bodies, underscoring the administrative nature of the dispute and the lack of a distinct legal question for this Court to resolve beyond the cited precedent.
This Regular First Appeal challenges the judgment dated 18 July 2019 in OS No. 349/2013 of the III Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode, passed in a suit between the appellants/defendants 12 to 14, and the legal heirs of the 11th defendant, on whose behalf a challenge to the trial court’s decrees is mounted. The appellants contend that the impugned decision never produced a valid decree and that the order rendered by the Sub Judge does not conclusively adjudicate the rights of the parties in the suit. The High Court undertakes a textual and statutory examination of the definitions of ‘decree’ (Section 2(2) CPC) and ‘judgment’ (Section 2(9) CPC), noting that a decree must be a formal, conclusive adjudication disposing of the suit or some issues, and that a judgment must state the grounds on which the determination rests to support a decree. Relying on earlier Supreme Court authorities (Dewan Brothers, Rathinavel Chettiar, Ratansingh) the court sets out essential elements of a valid decree. It also cites S. Satnam Singh to articulate four or five tests for determining whether an order is a decree. In the instant matter, no decree has been drawn, and the impugned judgment cannot stand; the appeal is allowed in part, and the matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to dispose properly and draw a decree in accordance with law. The Registry is directed to forward copies to the Director (Academics), Kerala Judicial Academy, for training. No costs.
This Bail Application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, is by Ashkar in Crime No.209/2025 of Cumbummettu Police Station, Idukki, alleging an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act, 1985 for possession of 105 grams of hashish oil seized on 10.03.2025. The petitioner has been in custody since 10.03.2025. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is ready to abide by any condition the Court imposes and that, since the seized quantity is an intermediate one, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted; the petitioner is in custody for a period that warrants consideration of bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but stated that no criminal antecedents are alleged against the petitioner per the IO report. The Court examined the facts, noting the seriousness of the allegations, but also the intermediate quantity and the period of detention, and concluded that bail could be granted with stringent conditions. The Court relied on the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, as enunciated in Chidambaram P. v. D.E.; Jalaluddin Khan v. UOI; and Manish Sisodia v. D.E., and cited Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala as applicable in this case. It directed that the petitioner be released on bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, appear before the IO as required, not leave India without permission, not commit a similar offence, and that the observations are for the bail proceeding only. If violated, bail can be cancelled. The order grants bail on these conditions.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5199 OF 2025 Pramod E Varghese, the first accused in Crime No.396/2025 of Kattappana Police Station, challenges a removably broad set of charges (Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC) under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail. The prosecution alleges that he, along with another accused, criminally breached trust and cheated a complainant and four others by deceitfully collecting Rs.2,80,00,000 on the pretext of arranging jobs in New Zealand, while providing fake visas and documents. The petitioner was arrested on 06.03.2025 and has been in custody since; custodial interrogation is reported to be complete, and there is no assertion of criminal antecedents. Arguments from both sides were heard; the State opposed bail citing the substantial amount involved and the need to safeguard investigations, while the petitioner contended that prolonged detention serves no purpose as he is innocent and that there is no barrier to fair trial if bail is granted. Citing established bail jurisprudence (Chidambaram P v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement), the court reiterates that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, even in serious cases, provided statutory conditions are met. The court ultimately grants regular bail with specific conditions, including a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO on Mondays at 10 AM until final report, travel restrictions, surrender of passport within seven days, non-commission of similar offenses, and potential modification if deserved. The decision emphasizes balancing the presumption of innocence with the needs of a fair investigation and trial.
Ramla’s original petition challenges Exts. P12 and P13 orders in OS No. 171/2021 before the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, in a partition suit. The suit by Ramla alleges that her late father Makkar had three wives and extensive joint-family properties, many of which are claimed to be partitionable, while the respondents contend that most properties are already transferred or not available for partition. The history includes two judgments (Exts. P6–P7) and directions to dispose of the suit promptly. Ramla filed IA No.17/2023 under Order 18 Rule 3 seeking a direction that the respondents begin trial first so she may lead rebuttal evidence, and IA No.16/2023 under Order XI Rule 1 seeking leave to deliver interrogatories. The respondents resisted, arguing that the interrogatories are irrelevant and belated, and that there was no necessity to fast-track trial within the already-expedited timeframe. The court below dismissed both applications (Exts. P12 and P13). The Kerala High Court, applying Article 227, held that discovery under Order XI should relate to matters in question and not be a free-roving inquiry, and that the interrogatories application was highly belated. It confirmed Ext. P13 and upheld Ext. P12, directing that the petitioner may exercise rebuttal rights on the partition issues, and disposed of the petition accordingly.
This motor accident claims appeal arises from a challenge to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur, under OP(MV) No.464/2011. Krishna Kumar, the deceased, died in a motor vehicle collision on 17.09.2007 while driving a lorry on the Alappuzha–Ernakulam road, allegedly due to the negligence of the offending driver. The Tribunal held negligence and awarded Rs.7,50,000 as total compensation. The appellants contested the quantum, arguing that the Tribunal erred in determining the deceased’s notional income and in applying the compensation framework. They argued the deceased, a heavy goods vehicle driver, should have a higher notional income (Ext. A9 suggested Rs.17,000 per month, though not proved); the insurer contended the Tribunal’s figure (Rs.5,000) was reasonable. The High Court examined the matter through the lens of Supreme Court precedents on head of loss and future prospects. It held the notional income at Rs.8,000, applied 40% future prospects (Pranay Sethi) and a multiplier of 17 (Sarla Verma), with a 1/2 deduction for personal and living expenses. It recalculated loss of dependency to Rs.11,42,400 and adjusted other heads (loss of estate, funeral, love and affection, and mental shock). The appeal was allowed in part, directing deposit of Rs.13,35,500, with interest, within two months, to be disbursed to the petitioners. The decision reflects a careful application of established standards for assessing compensation in negligence claims with due regard to evidence and statutory guidelines.
This writ petition challenges the proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against the petitioners in Crime No. 411/2019 of the Crime Branch, Kottayam. The petitioners, M/s KIMS Healthcare Management Limited and M/s KIMS Bellerose Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd., along with Dr. M.I. Sahadulla and E.M. Najeeeb, seek to quash ECIR/KCZO/28/2020 and the accompanying show-cause notices (P20 and P21) on the ground that the predicate offences alleged (IPC ss. 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B) do not stand established. The investigation culminated in Exhibit P18 final report asserting no offences and describing the matter as a “mistake of fact.” While the petition remained pending, the parties entered into a settlement (Exhibit P35) with terms including transfer of shares and an affidavit (Exhibit P36) conveying no objection to the police closure report, which the jurisdictional court accepted as “Refer accepted” on 7.9.2023; a protest complaint (Exhibit P39) by the third respondent remained pending. The Kerala High Court held that continuation of PMLA proceedings requires the existence of predicate offences; having found no predicate offences after the refer report and settlement, it quashed ECIR/KCZO/28/2020 and related notices, while clarifying that this ruling does not foreclose action under PMLA if predicate offences arise later. The decision draws on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (SC) and Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran for protest-complaint guidance and the settled principle that predicate offences are essential for PMLA action.
CRL.A Nos. 293-298 of 2011 Common judgment by Justice C.S. Dias of the Kerala High Court, delivering on six criminal appeals (CRL.A Nos. 293-298 of 2011) arising from three NI Act cheque cases (Cr. Nos. 421-423/2003) accusing a fish-exporting firm and its partners. The Trial Court convicted the second and fifth accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced them, while the first accused’s fate varied. The Appellate Court, by a common judgment, reversed the conviction against the second and fifth accused, acquitting them. The High Court’s consolidated decision upholds this acquittal and dismisses the six appeals, finding that the second and fifth accused were not in charge or responsible for the firm’s day-to-day affairs. The reasoning centers on the primary responsibility of the complainant to plead vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act and the burden on the accused to prove a lack of knowledge or day-to-day involvement, particularly when the managing partners are identified in the evidence. The court relies on leading precedents, including S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan, Sunitha Palitha, Jafarudeen, Rupesh Manger, and SMS Pharmaceuticals, to articulate the standard for appeals against acquittals and liability of firm partners. Ultimately, the six appeals are dismissed, preserving the acquittals of the 2nd and 5th accused.
W.P.(C) Nos.14991 of 2022, 23101 of 2022, 38279 of 2022, 20351 of 2023, 20956 of 2023, 21141 of 2023 and 38288 of 2023 The judgments consolidate multiple writ petitions challenging the engagement and substitution of temporary sanitation workers by the Alappuzha Municipality during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners, temporary daily-wage workers, alleged that the respondent authority sought to replace them with another set of temporary workers, contrary to established norms and the dictum of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh. They argued that vacancies should be filled by regular processes and employment exchanges, and that the government guidelines for substitute contingent workers (Ext.P3) and related orders were not properly followed. The petitions reference Ext.P3 guidelines, Government Orders (GO) 762/2020 and 1065/2020, and Ext.P4, which address substitution and the treatment of earlier daily-wage workers. The respondents contended that the COVID-19 crisis necessitated emergency engagement of daily-wage contingent workers to operate quarantine facilities, supported by GO provisions and Ext.P3 guidelines, and that the petitioners cannot claim protection under Piara Singh as this case does not involve replacing one set of temporary workers with another in the same manner. After hearing the matter with common issues across the connected petitions, the court held that the temporary contingent workforce was engaged under permissible guidelines to tide over the pandemic. It found Piara Singh inapplicable to these facts and dismissed the petitions for want of merit.
This Bail Application (B.A. No.5173 of 2025) concerns accused 9 and 14, Pushparabha Varghese and Nisha Ani, who are charged in Crime No.1797/CB/EOW/EKM/2024 of the Crime Branch, Ernakulam, with offences under Sections 406, 408, 409, 417, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC, in connection with alleged forged documents and disbursement of loans to ineligible persons by the Perumbavoor Urban Co‑operative Bank between 2011 and 2016. The petitioners approached the Kerala High Court under BNSS Section 483 seeking bail, contending that they have been in custody since 03.04.2025 and are prepared to comply with stringent conditions; they note that co‑accused have been granted bail in similar cases. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, pointing to the seriousness of the allegations. The court recognizes the long‑standing principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, as well as Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, to justify a balanced approach to bail while ensuring a fair trial. Ultimately, the court grants bail with directions: bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO as required, no travel abroad without permission, and no commitment of similar offences; the observations are strictly limited to bail, with conditions enforceable by the jurisdictional court. The order also notes that violation can lead to cancellation of bail.
This writ petition (WP(C) No.14366 of 2025) filed by the manager of KNMVHSS, Vatanappally, challenges the denial of consequential benefits arising from the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act), which mandates a 4% reservation in appointments for persons with disabilities and applies to aided schools. The petitioner asserts that posts have been earmarked and vacancies created to receive differently-abled candidates, and that processing of such candidates is underway through the Employment Exchange, but other regular appointments under managements are being impeded for want of physical/documentary verification of qualified candidates. The petition contends that the NSS Management obtained an Apex Court order (Ext.P10, dated 04.03.2025) and the government issued Ext.P11 (dated 17.03.2025), but Ext.P11 appears to be applicable only to NSS-managed schools. The petitioner urges that the benefit of Exts.P10 and P11 should extend to similarly situated managements and that denial would be unjust, especially in light of the decisions in Central Finance & Investments v. Secretary, Kothamangalam Municipality (2021) and Somukuttan Nair v. State of Kerala (1997), which are cited to support the entitlement to such benefits. After hearing, the court notes that Ext.P15 representation is pending and disposes of the petition by directing the Government to consider Ext.P15 in light of Exts.P10 and P11, within four months. The judgment underscores the need for consistent application of welfare measures across similarly situated institutions while avoiding premature adjudication on broader issues pending a formal response to Ext.P15.
This writ petition (Civil) filed by Subash R. challenges the action of the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC) and its recovery machinery under a loan for which Subash R. stood as guarantor. The 3rd respondent had availed a loan from the KFC, secured by the petitioner’s property (30 acres in Re.Sy.No.52, Puthoor Village, Kollam). After default in installments, KFC initiated recovery proceedings. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking (i) certiorari to set aside Ext.P4 and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the petitioner’s request; (ii) mandamus to release the petitioner from loan liability on payment of an amount revalued by the 1st respondent for the property; (iii) mandamus to consider Exhibit P5 and P6 representations; (iv) mandamus not to proceed with coercive measures against the property as per Ext.P1; (v) mandamus not to report the liability to credit bureaus affecting the petitioner’s CIBIL score. Respondents filed a statement; it reveals that per Ext.P4 the petitioner was informed to appear for a hearing on 20.06.2024. During the hearing, the bank valued the security at Rs.52.50 lakhs (valuation dated 28.03.2024) and demanded remittance of Rs.52.50 lakhs plus an additional Rs.11.88 lakh to maintain security for the balance loan (or substitution of security worth Rs.64.38 lakhs). The petitioner contends this valuation is not fair value and seeks reconsideration, offering to submit details of fair value. The court directed the petitioner to submit a representation within one week and, if received, to be considered within one month; until orders are passed, there shall be no coercive proceedings. The petition is disposed of accordingly, with directions for a fresh representation and for consideration thereof, and a stay on coercive action pending decision.
This is a bail petition (B.A.No.5168 of 2025) filed by accused Nos.6 and 7 in Crime No.218/2025 of Ottapalam Police Station, Palakkad, challenging the order in CMP No.2581/2025 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ottapalam. The petitioners, Harilal U and Aravind Thyagarajan, are charged under sections 318(4), 316(5) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging that between 29.06.2024 and 28.02.2025 they and others pledged spurious gold ornaments to cheat a Co‑operative Urban Bank, Pathiripala Branch, causing a loss of Rs 27 lakh to the bank. The petitioners have been in custody since 22.03.2025. Their counsel submitted that the allegations are not correct and that they are ready to comply with stringent bail conditions; no criminal antecedents were alleged against them. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but noted the lack of antecedents. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but held that indefinite incarceration is unwarranted and that bail is the rule, jail the exception. Relying on established jurisprudence (Chidambaram P., Jalaluddin Khan, Manish Sisodia) and Anzar Azeez, the court granted bail with conditions: Rs 50,000 bond with two solvent sureties each, appearance before IO, non‑departure from India, and prohibition on committing similar offences. The order clarifies the observations are strictly for this bail petition.
