Sindhu v. Nair Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2025)

Sindhu v. Nair Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required, co-operation with investigation and no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts; (ii) no departure from India without permission of the jurisdictional Court; (iii) no commission of a similar offence; (iv) observations and findings confined to disposal of the bail application, with the principle in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] applicable; (v) jurisdictional Court may cancel the bail on violation of conditions, and prosecution and victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, the 3rd accused in Crime No.715/2024 of CBCID, Kollam facing allegations under Sections 409, 420, 120B r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 r/w 21 & 5 r/w 23 of the BUDS Act, and in custody since 07.02.2025, should be released on bail in this application under Section 483 BNSS.

Court's answer

Despite serious allegations, indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary; considering the facts and circumstances, she can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

Ratio / Principle

Applying the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P, Jalaluddin Khan and Manish Sisodia, the Court proceeded to grant bail.

Key takeaways

Considering the dictum in the cited Supreme Court decisions and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bail Application is allowed subject to conditions, including execution of a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the Investigating Officer, non-departure from India without permission, and liability of the jurisdictional Court to cancel bail on violation.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted (S.483 BNSS) — Sindhu V. Nair, 3rd accused in Crime No.715/2024 of CBCID, Kollam (earlier Crime No.447/2024 of Koipuram Police Station), arising from allegations that the Managing Directors of erstwhile PRDS Nidhi Limited (renamed G & G Financiers) induced the defacto complainant to deposit Rs.10 lakhs on two occasions and failed to repay, offences under Ss.409, 420, 120B r/w 34 IPC and Ss.3 r/w 21 & 5 r/w 23 BUDS Act; in custody since arrest on 07.02.2025. Held: allegations serious, but indefinite incarceration unnecessary; bail is the rule and jail the exception, following Chidambaram. P v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 KHC 6431) and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426). Released on bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, with stringent conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer, no departure from India without permission, and power of the jurisdictional Court to cancel bail on violation; principle in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260) held applicable.

BA No.4576 of 2025

1

2025:KER:29134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947

BAIL APPL. NO. 4576 OF 2025

CRIME NO.715/2024 OF CBCID, KOLLAM, Kollam

PETITIONER( S )/3RD ACCUSED:

SINDHU V. NAIR
AGED 59 YEARS, W/O GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,SREERAMA
SADANAM,THELLLIYOOR.P.O, PATHNAMTHITTA,
PIN – 689 544

BY ADVS.
P VIJAYABHANU,SR
AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY
P.M.RAFIQ
M.REVIKRISHNAN
AJEESH K.SASI
SRUTHY N. BHAT
RAHUL SUNIL
SRUTHY K.K
SOHAIL AHAMMED HARRIS P.P.
NANDITHA S.
K.ARAVIND MENON

RESPONDENT( S )/RESPONDENT:

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 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

BA No.4576 of 2025

2

2025:KER:29134

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

BA No.4576 of 2025

Dated this the 04^th day of April, 2025

O R D E R

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The petitioner is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.715/2024 of CBCID, Kollam (earlier Crime No.447/2024 of Koipuram Police Station). The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B r/w 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 r/w 21 & 5 r/w 23 of the BUDS Act.

BA No.4576 of 2025

3

2025:KER:29134

The prosecution case is that, the accused being the Managing Directors of erstwhile PRDS Nidhi Limited which is renamed as G & G Financiers, dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.10 lakhs on two occasions by offering huge interest. It is alleged that the accused failed to return the amount with interest. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. The petitioner was arrested on 07.02.2025.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 07.02.2025. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition imposed by this

BA No.4576 of 2025

4

2025:KER:29134

Court, if this Court grants her bail.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is serious. But, the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody from 07.02.2025. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

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

BA No.4576 of 2025

5

2025:KER:29134

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. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union

of India [2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

“21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But,

BA No.4576 of 2025

6

2025:KER:29134

the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Art.21 of our Constitution.” (underline supplied)

10. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of

Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed that:

“53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well - settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our

BA No.4576 of 2025

7

2025:KER:29134

experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non - grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".”

Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions:

1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the

BA No.4576 of 2025

8

2025:KER:29134

like sum to the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional Court.

2. 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.

3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

BA No.4576 of 2025

9

2025:KER:29134

4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

5. The observations and f i ndings 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.

6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance w ith law, even

BA No.4576 of 2025

10

2025:KER:29134

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 there is any violation of the above condition.

Sd/-

nvj

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE