Kerala High Court
N.M Raju vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
1
2025:KER:32238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5545 OF 2025
CRIME NO.240/2025 OF Cantonment Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3 TO 6:
1 N.M RAJU
AGED NOT KNOWN S/O GEORGE NEDUMPARAMBIL
GARDENS, KUTTAPUZHA P.O, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689103
2 GRACE RAJU
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O N.M RAJU, NEDUMPARAMBIL GARDENS,
KUTTAPUZHA P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689103
3 ALAN
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O N.M RAJU, NEDUMPARAMBIL GARDENS,
KUTTAPUZHA P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689103
4 ANSON
AGED 31 YEARS
W/O N.M RAJU, NEDUMPARAMBIL GARDENS,
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
2
2025:KER:32238
KUTTAPUZHA P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689103
BY ADVS.
JAI GEORGE
DAISY A.PHILIPOSE
DARSHAN A.D.
RESPONDENT(S):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, STATUE, PALAYAL
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV.
SRI. G.SUDHEER PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5549/2025,
5557/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
3
2025:KER:32238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5549 OF 2025
CRIME NO.685/2025 OF CBCID, ERNAKULAM, Ernakulam
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:
1 N.M RAJU
AGED NOT KNOWN S/O GEORGE NEDUMPARAMBIL
GARDENS, KUTTAPUZHA P.O, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689103
2 GRACE RAJU
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O N.M RAJU, NEDUMPARAMBIL GARDENS,
KUTTAPUZHA P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689103
3 ALAN
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O N.M RAJU, NEDUMPARAMBIL GARDENS,
KUTTAPUZHA P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689103
4 ANSON
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O N.M RAJU, NEDUMPARAMBIL GARDENS,
KUTTAPUZHA P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
4
2025:KER:32238
DISTRICT, PIN - 689103
BY ADVS.
JAI GEORGE
DAISY A.PHILIPOSE
DARSHAN A.D.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI. NOUSHAD K A SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5545/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
5
2025:KER:32238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5557 OF 2025
CRIME NO.240/2025 OF Cantonment Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.7 TO 9:
1 ASHLIN SARA
AGED 26 YEARS
D/O N.M RAJU, NEDUMPARAMBIL GARDENS,
KUTTAPUZHA P.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689103
2 PRINCY ALAN
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O ALAN, NEDUMPARAMBIL GARDENS, KUTTAPUZHA
P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689103
3 MARIYA ANSON
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O ANSON, NEDUMPARAMBIL GARDENS, KUTTAPUZHA
P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689103
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
6
2025:KER:32238
BY ADVS.
JAI GEORGE
DAISY A.PHILIPOSE
DARSHAN A.D.
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, STATUE, PALAYAL
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV. SRI. NOUSHAD K A, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.04.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5545/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
7
2025:KER:32238
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------
Bail Appl. Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2025
ORDER
These Bail Applications filed under Section 482
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) are
connected and therefore, I am disposing of these bail
applications by a common order.
2. Petitioners in B.A. Nos.5545 & 5557 of
2025 are the accused in Crime No.240/2025 of
Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.
Petitioners in B.A. No.5549 of 2025 are the accused in
Crime No.685/2024 of Crime Branch (EOW), Ernakulam.
The above cases are registered against the petitioners
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
2025:KER:32238
alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 409
and 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Sections 3, 21, 5 & 23 of the Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act).
3. The prosecution case is that, on different
dates the de-facto complainants in these cases
deposited different amounts with M/s. Neduparambil
Credit Syndicate, upon their assurance of high rate of
interest on deposit, and in spite of the repeated demand,
the deposited amount or its interest was not repaid.
Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the
above said offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Admittedly, the petitioners were in
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
2025:KER:32238
custody for about 177 days in connection with the cases
registered with similar allegations. Petitioners' arrest
was not recorded in these case. The Public Prosecutor
submitted that, notice was issued to the petitioners in
some cases and their statements were also recorded by
the Investigating Officer. If that be the case, the
custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be
necessary. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on
stringent conditions.
6. 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,
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
2025:KER:32238
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.
7. 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
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
2025:KER:32238
because it is lawful does not mandate
that arrest must be made. A distinction
must be made 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."
8. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau
of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
2025:KER:32238
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.
9. Considering the dictum laid down in the
above decision and considering the facts and
circumstances of these cases, these Bail Applications are
allowed with the following directions:
1. The petitioners shall
appear before the Investigating Officer
within two weeks from today and shall
undergo interrogation.
2. After interrogation, if
the Investigating Officer propose to
arrest the petitioners, they shall be
released on bail on executing a bond for
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
2025:KER:32238
a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) each with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the arresting officer
concerned.
3. The petitioners shall
appear before the Investigating Officer
for interrogation as and when required.
The petitioners 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 them from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
2025:KER:32238
officer.
4. Petitioners shall not
leave India without permission of the
jurisdictional Court.
5. Petitioners shall not
commit an offence similar to the
offence of which they are accused, or
suspected, of the commission of which
they are 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]
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
2025:KER:32238
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 petitioners even while the
petitioners are 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
petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can
cancel the bail in accordance to law,
B.A.Nos.5545, 5549 & 5557 of 2025
2025:KER:32238
even 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
any of the above conditions are
violated.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
DM
