Kerala High Court
M.C. Kamarudheen vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A. Nos.6063 & 6634/2025 1
2025:KER:66625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6063 OF 2025
CRIME NO.ECIR/KZSZO/06/2020 OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, KOZHIKODE,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2025 IN CRL.MC NO.13 OF 2025 OF
SPCEIAL COURT (PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT), KOZHIKODE/
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (MARADU CASES) KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED:
M.C. KAMARUDHEEN
AGED 61 YEARS, S/O A.P. MOHAMMED KUNHI (LATE)
R/O KARMA, EDACHAKAI, UDINOOR,
KASARAGOD,KERALA, PIN - 671310
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.ANAND
SMT.GOWRI MENON
SMT.NANDHANA T.B.
SMT.ARCHANA N.
SHRI.ANOOP V.NAIR
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARMENT OF REVENUE
KOZHIKODE SUB ZONAL OFFICE,
B.A. Nos.6063 & 6634/2025 2
2025:KER:66625
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
SRI.PRASANTH M.P., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI. A.R.L.SUNDARESAN, ASGI
SRI.K.ANAND, CGC
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.08.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.No.6634/2025, THE COURT ON
09.09.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. Nos.6063 & 6634/2025 3
2025:KER:66625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6634 OF 2025
CRIME NO.ECIR/KZSZO/06/2020 OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, KOZHIKODE,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2025 IN CRL.MC NO.14 OF 2025 OF
SPCEIAL COURT (PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT), KOZHIKODE/
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (MARADU CASES), KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
T.K POOKOYA THANGAL
AGED 70 YEARS,
S/O SAYID MOHAMMED BUKHARI THANGAL(LATE),
R/O T.K.HOUSE,
CHANDERA MANIYAT, KASARAGOD,
KERALA, PIN - 671310
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAHUL SASI
SMT.NEETHU PREM
SMT.RADHIKA V.R.
SHRI.CHRISTO SIMON
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCNE,
B.A. Nos.6063 & 6634/2025 4
2025:KER:66625
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
KOZHIKODE SUB ZONAL OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
BY SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI. A.R.L.SUNDARESAN, ASGI
SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, SC, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.08.2025, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.No.6063/2025, THE COURT ON
09.09.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. Nos.6063 & 6634/2025 5
2025:KER:66625
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.6063 of 2025
&
B.A. No.6634 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2025
ORDER
Petitioners have filed these applications seeking regular bail under
section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. Petitioner in B.A. No. 6063 of 2025 is the fifth accused while
petitioner in BA No. 6634 of 2025 is the sixth accused in a complaint filed by
the Enforcement Directorate before the Special Court constituted under section
43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PMLA') as
ECIR No.KZSZO/06/2020. The complaint has been registered alleging offences
punishable under section 3 and 4 of the PMLA. Petitioners were arrested on
07.04.2025 and they were remanded on the next day and have been in
custody since then.
3. The complaint was filed at the behest of the Enforcement Directorate
alleging that the petitioner in B.A No. 6634 of 2025 was the Chairman of a
Company by name M/s. Fashion Gold International Private Ltd., which was
incorporated in the year 2006. Petitioner in B.A No. 6063 of 2025 was also
instrumental in the incorporation of the said company. Subsequently, three
other sister companies were formed, all with the objective of carrying on a
2025:KER:66625
jewellery business. The petitioner in B.A No. 6063 of 2025 is the Managing
Director of those companies. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused
had collected large amounts of money and gold from various persons in the
form of deposits under various schemes and established branches at various
places and conducted jewellery business. The deposits were collected by the
petitioners who were active politicians and social workers, promising huge
amounts as dividends or profits and they failed to adhere to the promises.
Pursuant to complaints from various depositors, several crimes were
registered. Investigation into those crimes revealed that the accused had
collected deposits from the public without any authority and they utilised the
funds collected for acquiring immovable properties in their personal names and
thereby indulged in money laundering. On the basis of the aforesaid
allegations, the accused were alleged to have commuted the offence under
section 4 of the PMLA.
4. Sri. Anoop V. Nair, and Sri. Rahul Sasi the learned counsel for the
respective petitioners contended that the prosecution allegations are totally
false and that the petitioners are respectable persons who have been in
custody for the last more than 155 days as they were arrested on 07.04.2025.
The learned counsel further pointed out that, 265 crimes have already been
registered against the petitioners, which are being investigated by the Crime
Branch and the petitioners have undergone custody for 110 days in those
crimes while the present custody from 07-04-2025 is over and apart from the
said earlier custody. Thus, according to the learned counsel, petitioners have
2025:KER:66625
been in custody for more than 265 days.
5. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner in B.A No. 6063
of 2025 is a former Member of Legislative Assembly of Kerala and that there
can be no flight risk and considering their old age and the period of custody
already undergone by them, they ought to be released on bail. The learned
counsel further submitted that the failure to return the amounts collected were
not intentional but due to Covid-19 pandemic, when several financial
establishments went into difficulty as a result of the lock down, the companies
under the management of the petitioners also faced difficulties and that there
is nothing to indicate that any offence as alleged was committed by the
petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that 265 crimes have been
registered by the Crime Branch against the accused and the allegation in the
crime registered by the Enforcement Directorate is based on the very same
subject matter and already petitioners have been interrogated and even
immovable properties worth Rs. 19.60 Crores were attached and therefore
continuance of the petitioners in jail is not conducive to the notions of right to
life and liberty as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The learned counsel also submitted that petitioners are senior citizens suffering
from various health issues and they are being targeted due to political rivalry.
It was also submitted that even if the allegations are admitted, still an offence
under section 420 IPC cannot be made out under any circumstances and hence
the petitioners cannot be assumed to be guilty of the offence alleged and
therefore the rigour under section 45 of PMLA stands diluted.
2025:KER:66625
6. Sri. A.R.L. Sundaresan, the learned Additional Solicitor General of
India assisted by Sri. Jaysankar V. Nair, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
for the Enforcement Directorate on the other hand submitted that the
companies formed by the petitioners had collected deposits and investments in
the form of shares under various schemes, by offering huge dividends to the
investors and later failed to fulfill those promises and stopped paying interest
to investors and thereby cheated them. It was also submitted that several
crimes were registered against the petitioners and other accused in various
districts in Kerala and also that they had travelled to various countries to
collect deposits from Indians residing abroad and collected those deposits
without any authority and the investments were collected even in cash. It was
also submitted that the companies were maintaining parallel records of
investments and amounts were diverted for acquiring immovable assets in the
name of the accused which were either disposed of or transferred into the
name of family members and other persons to avoid detection by authorities.
7. I have considered the rival contentions.
8. Petitioner in B.A. No.6063 of 2025 is accused No.5 while petitioner in
B.A. No.6634 of 2025 is the 6 th accused in the complaint filed by the
Enforcement Directorate before the Special Court constituted under section
43(1) of the PMLA. The complaint alleges that investigation conducted by the
Crime Branch into 168 F.I.R's registered against four companies and its
Directors, who are named as three in number, revealed that the accused
deceitfully collected deposits from the public with intent to defraud the
2025:KER:66625
investors, after promising huge returns. The offences alleged in the predicate
crime include sections 406, 409 and 420 read with section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 apart from section 5 of the Kerala Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013 and section 5 read with
section 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. The
investigation is alleged to have further revealed that around Rs.26 Crores were
collected by the accused from the various defacto complainants in the
numerous predicate crimes registered, and the proceeding under the PMLA has
been initiated since the offence under section 420 IPC, is alleged.
9. The investigation conducted under the PMLA Act is alleged to have
revealed that four companies i.e., M/s. Fashion Gold International Pvt. Ltd.,
M/s. Fashion Ornaments Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Nujoom Gold Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Qamar
Fashion Gold Pvt. Ltd. who are arrayed as accused 1 to 4 had, along with the
petitioners, collected deposits with the dishonest intention of defrauding the
investors by promising attractive returns. It has also been revealed that the
companies were not authorised to accept deposits from the public and around
Rs.20 Crores were siphoned off by the accused, which allegedly constitutes the
proceeds of crime.
10. At this juncture, it needs to be mentioned that, two main allegations
are raised against the accused, (i) that they collected deposits from the public
without any authority and (ii) that they failed to disburse the dividend or
profits, as promised.
11. Concededly, there are four companies in which petitioners are
2025:KER:66625
Directors. There are other Directors of the company as well. However, most of
them have not been named as accused in the complaint under the PMLA. Four
companies are alleged to have committed the offences under the Indian Penal
Code. The predicate offence alleging commission of offence under section 420
IPC have been registered, alleging that the complainants have invested money
in the company under the inducement of the petitioners who are the Chairman
and Managing Director. Therefore primarily, allegation is in relation to
investment made in companies. There is prima facie nothing to indicate any
dishonest intention. Considering the nature of allegations in the various F.I.R's
registered and the final reports filed, it is doubtful as to whether the
petitioners, being the Chairman and Managing Director, can be found guilty for
the offence under section 420 IPC.
12. As far as the allegation regarding the collection of deposits from the
public with the dishonest intention of defrauding investors by promising
attractive returns, again, the allegation is with respect to the four companies
who were entitled to have 200 shareholders per company, at least after the
year 2013. The total number of depositors in all the four companies put
together, are stated to be about 464, which is less than the total number of
investors that the four companies put together could have had from 2013.
Since the allegations revolve around the investments or deposits collected from
persons beyond the limits permissible under law, it may amount to violation of
section 2(68) and section 73 of the Companies Act 2013 or other provisions
under the said Act. Merely because, there is a violation of the provisions of the
2025:KER:66625
Companies Act 2013, that need not necessarily mean that such a violation
would fall within the purview of section 420 of IPC, unless there was any
dishonest intention from the very inception. In this context, this Court has to
bear in mind that in almost all the F.I.R's, copies of which were handed over
across the Bar, the defacto complainant themselves have alleged that a portion
of the amount collected, had already been disbursed to them either as profits
or as dividends. When there are returns of portions of the amount invested,
either in the form of profits or in the form of dividends or otherwise, it is
difficult to assume, that too at this juncture, that there was a dishonest
intention from the inception to cheat the defacto complainants. The FIR's are
all seen to have been registered after September, 2020 when the country had
into a state of lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic. A business failure cannot
lead to an assumption of commission of the offence of cheating, as the primary
ingredient for such an offence is a dishonest or fraudulent intention from the
very beginning. Reference to the decisions in Inder Mohan Goswami and
Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others [(2007) 12 SCC 1], Dalip
Kaur and Others v. Jagnar Singh and Another [(2009) 14 SCC 696] and
Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat [2025 INSC 614] are relevant in this
context.
13. Moreover, it has even been held that if the intention to cheat was
developed later on, still it cannot amount to cheating unless there was a
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or
representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure
2025:KER:66625
on the part of an accused to keep his promise, if there was an absence of
culpable intention at the time of making the initial promise, no offence under
section 420 of IPC will be made out. Reference to the decision in VESA
Holdings (P) Ltd. and Another V. State of Kerala and Others [(2015) 8
SCC 293] is apposite in this context.
14. Viewed in the above perspective, this Court is of the view that prima
facie, there are no reasons to assume that the petitioners are guilty of the
offence under section 420 of IPC and consequently for the offence alleged
under the PMLA Act.
15. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that fraudulent or dishonest
intention at the time of making the promise is the crux of the offence under
section 420 IPC. The courts have repeatedly observed that mere breach of the
term of a contract would not amount to cheating, unless there was a
fraudulent intention from the very beginning. Failure to return the money
collected or the deposit taken, cannot amount to the offence of cheating.
However, the said failure may amount to an offence under the BUDS Act, after
2019. Even if an offence under the BUDS Act is made out, since it is not a
scheduled offence, the PMLA Act will not apply. In this context, this Court
reminds itself that the term 'proceeds of crime' relate to property derived or
obtained as a result of a criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.
Therefore, I am satisfied that, prima facie, there are no materials to assume
that the petitioners have committed the offence under the PMLA.
16. Apart from the above, it needs to be noted that the petitioners were
2025:KER:66625
arrested on 07.04.2025, and have been in custody since then. Already, more
than 155 days have passed since they were taken into custody under the
PMLA. As mentioned earlier, they have been in custody for another 110 days
during the investigation stage in the predicate offence. Petitioners have thus
undergone a total custody of around 265 days pursuant to the F.I.R and the
arrest under the PMLA. Taking into consideration the said period of custody
already undergone, no purpose would be served by continuing the custody
further.
17. Moreover, in P.Chidambaram V. Directorate of Enforcement
[(2020) 13 SCC 791], the Supreme Court had after analysing the relevant
decisions held as follows;
"Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side
including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could
be deduced 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.
However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an
aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for
the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances
arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall
on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even
economic offences would fall under the category of "grave offence" and in
such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such
matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the
nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstances
to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is
prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such
consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in
addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied.
2025:KER:66625
In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the
allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should
be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant
enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence
provides so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of
the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will
not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a
bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on
case - to - case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the
presence of the accused to stand trial."
18. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision in V. Senthil
Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2024 SCC OnLine
SC 2626). Paragraph 27 of the said decision reads thus:
"27. ..........When the trial of the complaint under PMLA is likely to prolong
beyond reasonable limits, the Constitutional Courts will have to consider
exercising their powers to grant bail. The reason is that Section 45(1)(ii)
does not confer power on the State to detain an accused for an
unreasonably long time, especially when there is no possibility of trial
concluding within a reasonable time. What a reasonable time is will depend
on the provisions under which the accused is being tried and other factors.
One of the most relevant factor is the duration of the minimum and
maximum sentence for the offence. Another important consideration is the
higher threshold or stringent conditions which a statute provides for the
grant of bail. Even an outer limit provided by the relevant law for the
completion of the trial, if any, is also a factor to be considered. The
extraordinary powers, as held in the case of K. A. Najeeb ((2021) 3 SCC
713) can only be exercised by the Constitutional Courts. The Judges of the
Constitutional Courts have vast experience. Based on the facts on record, if
the Judges conclude that there is no possibility of a trial concluding in a
reasonable time, the power of granting bail can always be exercised by the
Constitutional Courts on the grounds of violation of Part III of the
Constitution of India notwithstanding the statutory provisions. The
2025:KER:66625
Constitutional Courts can always exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 or
Article 226, as the case may be. The Constitutional Courts have to bear in
mind while dealing with the cases under the PMLA that, except in a few
exceptional cases, the maximum sentence can be of seven years. The
Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) to
become instruments in the hands of the ED to continue incarceration for a
long time when there is no possibility of a trial of the scheduled offence and
the PMLA offence concluding within a reasonable time. If the Constitutional
Courts do not exercise their jurisdiction in such cases, the rights of the
undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be defeated. In
a given case, if an undue delay in the disposal of the trial of scheduled
offences or disposal of trial under the PMLA can be substantially attributed
to the accused, the Constitutional Courts can always decline to exercise
jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs. An exception will also be in a case
where, considering the antecedents of the accused, there is every
possibility of the accused becoming a real threat to society if enlarged on
bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs is always discretionary."
19. The above observations were quoted with approval in the decision in
Udhaw Singh v. Enforcement Directorate [2025 SCC Online SC 357]. In
Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC Online SC 1920]
also, the Supreme Court had observed that while considering the question of
bail in PMLA proceedings, the Court has to take note of the dimension
regarding long periods of incarceration and delay in trial since the
constitutional mandate is the higher law. In the decision in Prem Prakash v.
Union of India [(2024) 9 SCC 787] also, the aforesaid principle has been laid
down.
20. In the instant cases, there is no possibility of the trial against the
petitioners being commenced or completed in the next few years. Other than
2025:KER:66625
the large numbers of predicate crimes registered, no antecedents have been
shown to be existing against the petitioners. Detaining the accused for a long
time, especially when the period of punishment prescribed is limited, is an
intrusion into the liberty of an individual. In the above circumstances,
continuing the incarceration will amount to be an instrument in the hands of
ED to confine the petitioners in jail for a long time without any possibility of
a trial. Having regard to the above circumstances, this Court is of the view
that the continued custody of the petitioners is not warranted.
Accordingly these two bail applications are allowed and petitioners shall
be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:
(a) Petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to
the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
(b) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when
required.
(c) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses;
nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or his/her
family members.
(d) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.
(e) Petitioners shall not leave India without the permission of the Court
having jurisdiction.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or
2025:KER:66625
deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered
to consider such applications if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
2025:KER:66625
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6063/2025
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF ARREST ORDER DATED 07/04/2025
IN F.NO.ECIR/KZSZO/06/2020
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE PRODUCTION MEMO FILED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONORABLE SPECIAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (MARAD CASES )
KOZHIKODE DATED 8.4.2025
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONORABLE
SPECIAL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (MARAD
CASES) KOZHIKODE DATED 21.4.2025 IN
CRL.M.C.NO.11 OF 2025
Annexure D THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2025
OF THE HONORABLE SPECIAL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT (MARAD CASES) KOZHIKODE IN
CRL.M.C.NO.13 OF 2025
Annexure E A TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED
10/06/2024 ISSUED BY THE ASTER MIMS HOSPITAL
KANNUR
Annexure F TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.575 OF 2020 OF THE
CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGODE DATED
28.8.2020 ALONG WITH FIS
Annexure G TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 04.01.2021 IN
B.A.NO. 8925/2020 AND B.A.NO.8927/2020 OF
THIS HONORABLE COURT
Annexure H TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 05.12.2023 IN
B.A.NO.10546 OF 2022 AND B.A.NO.10548 OF 2022
OF THIS HONORABLE COURT
Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED
27.02.2025 IN CRL.M.C.NO. 265 OF 2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE III
Annexure J TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS OF
NUJOOM GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED AS ON 31.03.2017
ALONG WITH THE REGISTERED ADDRESS OF THE
COMPANY DOWNLOADED FROM THE MINISTRY OF
CORPORATE AFFAIRS PORTAL (MCA PORTAL)
Annexure K TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS OF
FASHION GOLD INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED AS
ON 31.03.2017 ALONG WITH THE REGISTERED
2025:KER:66625
ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY DOWNLOADED FROM THE
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS PORTAL (MCA
PORTAL)
Annexure L TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS OF
QAMAR FASHION GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED, KASARAGOD
AS ON 31.03.2018 ALONG WITH THE REGISTERED
ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY DOWNLOADED FROM THE
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS PORTAL (MCA
PORTAL)
Annexure M TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS OF
FASHION ORNAMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED AS ON
31.03.2017 ALONG WITH THE REGISTERED ADDRESS
OF THE COMPANY DOWNLOADED FROM THE MINISTRY
OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS PORTAL (MCA PORTAL)
Annexure N TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE J CERTIFIED BY THE
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DATED
11.08.2025
Annexure O TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE K CERTIFIED BY THE
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DATED
11.08.2025
Annexure P TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE L CERTIFIED BY THE
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DATED
11.08.2025
Annexure Q TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE M CERTIFIED BY THE
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DATED
11.08.2025
2025:KER:66625
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6634/2025
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF ARREST ORDER DATED 07.04.2025
IN ECIR/KZSZO/06/2020
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRODUCTION MEMO FILED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LEARNED SPECIAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (MARAD CASES)
KOZHIKODE DATED 8.4.2025
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CUSTODY APPLICATION FILED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LEARNED
SPECIAL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (MARAD
CASES), KOZHIKODE DATED 08.04.2025
Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2025
IN CRL M.C NO. 14 OF 2025 ON THE FILES OF THE
SPECIAL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (MARAD
CASES), KOZHIKODE
Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORTS OF THE
PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 23.08.2023
