Kerala High Court
Anantha Krishnan vs State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.NO.4742, 4746, 4755,
5010 & 5059 of 2025
1
2025:KER:31031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 4742 OF 2025
CRIME NO.697/2024 OF Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER(S)/4TH ACCUSED:
ANANTHA KRISHNAN
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O ANILKUMAR, SREERAMA SADANAM,
KURIYANNOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689550
BY ADV. C.S.MANU
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SR PP - SRI. HRITHWIK C S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4746/2025, 4755/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO.4742, 4746, 4755,
5010 & 5059 of 2025
2
2025:KER:31031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 4746 OF 2025
CRIME NO.651/2024 OF Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER(S)/4TH ACCUSED:
ANANTHA KRISHNAN
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O ANILKUMAR, SREERAMA SADANAM,
KURIYANNOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689550
BY ADV C.S.MANU
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
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
07.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4742/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO.4742, 4746, 4755,
5010 & 5059 of 2025
3
2025:KER:31031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 4755 OF 2025
CRIME NO.446/2024 OF Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER(S)/4TH ACCUSED:
ANANTHA KRISHNAN
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O ANILKUMAR, SREERAMA SADANAM,
KURIYANNOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689550
BY ADV C.S.MANU
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
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
07.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4742/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO.4742, 4746, 4755,
5010 & 5059 of 2025
4
2025:KER:31031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5010 OF 2025
CRIME NO.897/2022 OF Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER(S):
ANANTHA KRISHNAN
AGED 28 YEARS
SREERAM SADANAM KURIYANNOOR PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 689550
BY ADV. C.S.MANU
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SR PP - NOUSHAD K.A.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4742/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO.4742, 4746, 4755,
5010 & 5059 of 2025
5
2025:KER:31031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5059 OF 2025
CRIME NO.993/2022 OF Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER(S)/5TH ACCUSED:
ANANTHA KRISHNAN
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O ANILKUMAR, SREERAMA SADANAM,
KURIYANNOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689550
BY ADV C.S.MANU
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SR PP - NOUSHAD K.A.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4742/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO.4742, 4746, 4755,
5010 & 5059 of 2025
6
2025:KER:31031
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------------------
B.A.Nos.4742, 4746, 4755, 5010 & 5059 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of April, 2025
ORDER
These bail applications filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 are
connected and therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a
common order.
2. The petitioner in these cases are one and the
same person. He is an accused in Crime Nos.897 & 993 of
2022, 446, 651 & 697 of 2024 of Koipuram Police Station,
Pathanamthitta. The above cases are now investigated by
the Crime Branch Police. Crime Nos.446, 651 & 697 of 2024
are registered against the petitioner alleging offences
punishable under Sections 409 and 420 r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 5, 23, 3 & 21 of the Banning of
Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short 'BUDS
B.A.NO.4742, 4746, 4755,
5010 & 5059 of 2025
2025:KER:31031
Act'). Crime Nos.897 & 993 of 2022 are registered against
the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections
420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner
and the other accused cheated the defacto complainants in
these cases by collecting huge amounts from them as
deposits. It is alleged that neither the deposited amount nor
the interest is returned. Hence, it is alleged that the accused
committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that,
the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. It is
submitted that the petitioner is the son of the Managing
Director of the Company. He is settled in Singapore and he is
not attending the day-to-day affairs of the Company. It is
submitted that the petitioner went abroad in 2019. He has
no connection with the Company. His father added him as a
Director. Different contentions are raised by the petitioner
B.A.NO.4742, 4746, 4755,
5010 & 5059 of 2025
2025:KER:31031
stating that it is not an unregulated deposit scheme. The
counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide
any conditions imposed by this Court, if this Court grants him
bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the
petitioner is not in India now. But the counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is coming back to
India on 15.04.2025 and that the travel document is also
produced.
7. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the
allegation against the petitioner and other accused are
serious. But, the petitioner is only one of the Directors of the
Company. The Managing Director is the father of the
petitioner. He was already arrested and released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think,
the petitioner can be directed to appear before the
Investigating Officer and after interrogation if arrest is
B.A.NO.4742, 4746, 4755,
5010 & 5059 of 2025
2025:KER:31031
recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner on
bail.
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 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. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021(5)KHC 353]
considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the
above judgment is extracted hereunder.
"12. We may note that personal liberty is an important
aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to
arrest an accused during investigation arises when
custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a
heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing
the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an
arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate
that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made
B.A.NO.4742, 4746, 4755,
5010 & 5059 of 2025
2025:KER:31031
between the existence of the power to arrest and the
justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of
UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994
(1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994
CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause
incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a
person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to
believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons
and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the
investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a
compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused."
10. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of
Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed
that, even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence,
it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.
Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of
these cases, these Bail Applications are allowed with the
following conditions:
1. The petitioner shall appear before
the Investigating Officer within four weeks from
today and shall undergo interrogation.
B.A.NO.4742, 4746, 4755,
5010 & 5059 of 2025
2025:KER:31031
2. After interrogation, if the
Investigating Officer propose to arrest the
petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing
a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for
the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting
officer concerned.
3. 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.
4. Petitioner shall not leave India
without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioner shall not commit an
B.A.NO.4742, 4746, 4755,
5010 & 5059 of 2025
2025:KER:31031
offence similar to the offence of which he is
accused, or suspected, of the commission of which
he is suspected.
6. 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.
7. Needless to mention, it would be
well within the powers of the investigating officer
to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to
effect recoveries on the information, if any, given
by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on
bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
8. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court
B.A.NO.4742, 4746, 4755,
5010 & 5059 of 2025
2025:KER:31031
can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even
though this bail is granted by this Court. The
prosecution and the victims are at liberty to
approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail,
if any of the above conditions are violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
