Anitha R. Nair vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 3698 Ker

Kerala High Court

Anitha R. Nair vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

BAIL APPL. NO. 1744 OF 2025           1

& conn. cases

                                                      2025:KER:9815
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

   THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 17TH MAGHA, 1946

                       BAIL APPL. NO. 1744 OF 2025

  CRIME NO.1563/2024 OF Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam

PETITIONER/S:
          ANITHA R. NAIR
          AGED 54 YEARS
          W/O SAJITH A.J, KELAMANGALAM HOUSE, CHANNANIKAD
          P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686533

                BY ADVS.
                C.S.MANU
                DILU JOSEPH
                C.A.ANUPAMAN
                T.B.SIVAPRASAD
                NEETHU.K.SHAJI
                C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
                MANJU E.R.
                ALINT JOSEPH
                PAUL JOSE
                DAINY DAVIS


RESPONDENT/S:
          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031
          SRI.HRITHWIK CS, SR.PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1745/2025, 1747/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 1744 OF 2025           2

& conn. cases

                                                     2025:KER:9815

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

   THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 17TH MAGHA, 1946

                       BAIL APPL. NO. 1745 OF 2025

  CRIME NO.1658/2024 OF Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam

PETITIONER/S:
          ANITHA R. NAIR
          AGED 54 YEARS
          W/O SAJITH A.J, KELAMANGALAM HOUSE, CHANNANIKAD
          P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686533

                BY ADVS.
                C.S.MANU
                DILU JOSEPH
                C.A.ANUPAMAN
                T.B.SIVAPRASAD
                NEETHU.K.SHAJI
                C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
                MANJU E.R.
                ALINT JOSEPH
                PAUL JOSE
                DAINY DAVIS


RESPONDENT/S:
          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031
          SRI.HRITHWIK CS, SR.PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1744/2025 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 1744 OF 2025              3

& conn. cases

                                                      2025:KER:9815
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

   THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 17TH MAGHA, 1946

                       BAIL APPL. NO. 1747 OF 2025

  CRIME NO.1577/2024 OF Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam

PETITIONER/S:
          ANITHA R. NAIR
          AGED 54 YEARS
          W/O SAJITH A.J, KELAMANGALAM HOUSE, CHANNANIKAD
          P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686533

                BY ADVS.
                C.S.MANU
                DILU JOSEPH
                C.A.ANUPAMAN
                T.B.SIVAPRASAD
                NEETHU.K.SHAJI
                C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
                MANJU E.R.
                ALINT JOSEPH
                PAUL JOSE
                DAINY DAVIS


RESPONDENT/S:
          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031
          SRI.NOUSHAD KA, SR.PP


      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2025,       ALONG   WITH    Bail   Appl..1744/2025   AND   CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 1744 OF 2025              4

& conn. cases

                                                      2025:KER:9815
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

   THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 17TH MAGHA, 1946

                       BAIL APPL. NO. 1748 OF 2025

  CRIME NO.1646/2024 OF Chingavanam Police Station, Kottayam

PETITIONER/S:
          ANITHA R. NAIR
          AGED 54 YEARS
          W/O SAJITH A.J, KELAMANGALAM HOUSE, CHANNANIKAD
          P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686533

                BY ADVS.
                C.S.MANU
                DILU JOSEPH
                C.A.ANUPAMAN
                T.B.SIVAPRASAD
                NEETHU.K.SHAJI
                C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
                MANJU E.R.
                ALINT JOSEPH
                PAUL JOSE
                DAINY DAVIS
RESPONDENT/S:
          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031
          SRI.NOUSHAD KA, SR.PP


      THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2025,       ALONG   WITH    Bail   Appl..1744/2025   AND   CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 1744 OF 2025       5

& conn. cases

                                                   2025:KER:9815

                   P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                 --------------------------------------
                 B.A. Nos. 1744, 1745, 1747
                          & 1748 of 2025
                 --------------------------------------
            Dated this the 6th day of February, 2025



                              ORDER

These Bail Applications are filed under Section 482 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

2. The petitioner is an accused in different

crimes of Chingavanam Police Station. The above cases are

registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable

under Secs.406 & 420 IPC and also under Sec.21 & 23 of the

Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 ( for

short 'BUDS Act').

3. The prosecution case in brief in all these

cases is that the accused with an intention to cause wrongful

loss to the defacto complainant in these cases and to make

wrongful gain to themselves made the defacto complainant to

& conn. cases

2025:KER:9815 believe that high interest will be given, if money is invested in

the firm M/s. Kelamangalam Financiers and Investors

situated at Pannimattom owned by the 1st accused and

believing the same, the defacto complainant in her own name

and in the names of her relatives, deposited huge amount and

the said amount did not return and interest is also not paid.

Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner was working as a Senior Manager Audit &

Inspection Section, Head Office, Kerala Bank,

Thiruvananthapuram. She is in no way connected with M/s.

Kelamangalam Financiers and Investors, Pannimattom. It is

also submitted that, the petitioner is the wife of the 1 st

accused. Therefore, she is implicated as an accused. The

counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any

conditions, if this Court grants her bail. The Public

& conn. cases

2025:KER:9815 Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public

Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner is necessary.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the 1st

accused. She is the wife of the 1st accused. She is a lady.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think

the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing

stringent conditions. The petitioner shall surrender her

passport before the investigating officer, at the time of

surrender. The petitioner shall appear before the

investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.00 am for a period

of one month and thereafter, as and when required.

7. 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

& conn. cases

2025:KER:9815 bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure

that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

8. 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 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."

& conn. cases

2025:KER:9815

9. 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.

10. Considering the dictum laid down in the

above decision and considering the facts and circumstances

of this case, these Bail Applications are allowed with the

following directions:

1. The petitioner 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

petitioner, she 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

& conn. cases

2025:KER:9815 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 her 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 offence similar to the offence of which

she is accused, or suspected, of the

& conn. cases

2025:KER:9815 commission of which she is suspected.

6. The petitioner shall

surrender her passport before the

investigating officer, at the time of

surrender.

7. The petitioner shall appear

before the investigating officer on all

Mondays at 10.00 am for a period of one

month and thereafter, as and when

required.

8. 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

& conn. cases

2025:KER:9815 of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].

9. If any of the above

conditions are violated by the petitioner, the

jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in

accordance to law, 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 SKS