Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court, through Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, allowed a batch of bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner, a woman accused in 13 financial fraud cases involving deposit schemes, was granted regular bail on the ground that she has been in judicial custody since 06.02.2025 and is entitled to parity with earlier bail orders passed in her favour. The Court held:
“Considering the fact that the petitioner is a woman and also considering the fact that she has actually been in judicial custody since 06.02.2025… petitioner ought to be released on bail.”
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920].
Facts
- The petitioner was implicated in 13 different crimes registered by various police stations, now being investigated by the CBCID, Pathanamthitta.
- The offences relate to her involvement in collecting deposits from the public under the pretext of offering high interest rates through M/s G&G Financiers (formerly PRD Nidhi Limited).
- The prosecution alleges that the accused failed to return the deposited amounts and committed criminal breach of trust and fraud.
- The petitioner is either the 2nd or 3rd accused in the respective cases.
- She was arrested on 14.03.2025 in most cases and on 20.03.2025 in three others.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in all the connected criminal cases involving allegations of fraudulent deposit collection?
- Whether prolonged judicial custody and the petitioner’s gender weigh in favour of bail?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner has been in continuous custody since 06.02.2025.
- Bail has already been granted to her in similarly situated connected cases under B.A. Nos. 4576/2025 and 5720/2025.
- Being a woman, her case deserves leniency as per established legal principles and parity.
- She is willing to comply with all conditions imposed by the Court.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The prosecution did not present specific reasons or exceptional circumstances to oppose bail in these fresh applications.
- No additional aggravating factors were cited to distinguish these cases from those in which bail had already been granted.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed the petitions under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaces provisions akin to Section 437/439 of the Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail. It noted that there were no distinguishing features in the present batch of cases that would justify a denial of bail, particularly when bail had already been granted in similar matters.
The Court observed that:
- Continued incarceration without trial should be avoided unless warranted by compelling reasons.
- Gender and duration of custody are relevant considerations in bail jurisprudence.
Precedent Analysis
The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in:
- Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920] — where principles of prolonged custody and parity were discussed, affirming that custodial interrogation loses its purpose over time and bail should not be denied indefinitely in the absence of necessity.
Court’s Reasoning
- The allegations in all cases were substantially similar, and bail had already been granted to the petitioner in other matters involving the same modus operandi.
- The Court found no legal basis to deny bail in the current batch of applications when no new or aggravating circumstances were brought forth.
- The petitioner’s continued custody since February and her gender were significant in tipping the balance in her favour.
The Court held:
“No reasons are pointed out to avoid extending the benefit of bail in these applications as well… petitioner ought to be released on bail.”
Conclusion
All bail applications were allowed. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail in each case upon executing a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including:
- Appearance before Investigating Officer when directed.
- No inducement, threat, or promise to witnesses.
- No commission of any further offences while on bail.
- Surrender of passport (or affidavit of non-possession).
- Liberty to seek modification of bail conditions from the jurisdictional court.
The jurisdictional courts were empowered to consider any application for cancellation of bail in case of breach.
Implications
- The decision reinforces the principle of parity in bail jurisprudence.
- It highlights that continued judicial custody without compelling justification, particularly of women, may invite liberal interpretation.
- The judgment demonstrates the Kerala High Court’s commitment to procedural fairness and constitutional liberty under the new BNSS framework.