K. N. ANAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important point to be decided in this case is about the jurisdiction of a court to release a person on bail based on his/her sickness, in the light of the first proviso to Sec. 480(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'). Nowadays, there is a general belief in society that, if a person is arrested in connection with a case, that person can easily get bail, without even seeing the doors of jail, if he has a 'sickness', even if it is pretended. Whether a person have the right to get bail even in serious cases based on sickness? I will discuss the matter in detail in this order. No one should think that they can escape the doors of prison by pretending to be sick, when they are involved in serious cases with serious allegations. I am of the considered opinion that, if there is genuine sickness to them, they deserve treatment only through the jail doctor, and not by sleeping in a luxury room in a luxury hospital. The jail doctor can decide whether an expert treatment is necessary or not. They should taste the food inside the jail and not the homemade food that comes in a parcel box from their homes. There are facilities in our jail to treat any sort of illness. If there is any casualty, expert treatment also can be given, based on the recommendation of jail doctors. No one can overtake the same and go directly to a hospital after being remanded by a court (except in exceptional cases) because there are reasonable restrictions to some of the rights of a prisoner/under-trial prisoner when he/she is in jail. This court can take judicial notice of some of such instances. This Court denied anticipatory bail recently to a politician namely, PC George as per order dtd. 21/2/2025 in BA No. 1874/2025 (P.C.George v. State of Kerala, 2025 KHC Online 223). Immediately after rejecting bail, he surrendered before the police and it seems that he developed some physical ailments and the jurisdictional court was forced to send him to hospital instead of jail. Subsequently, he was released by the learned Magistrate without even seeing the doors of the jail. After his release, his son openly stated in the media that he was happy because his father usually will not go to the hospital and he thanked the defacto complainant in that case for filing a complaint so that a full body checkup of his father could be conducted because of his arrest. This was published in all newspapers and media. This is not only an insult to the defacto complainant, but a reminder to the judiciary also, while considering bail applications, when the person is in hospital.

(2.) These two bail applications are filed by one and the same person and therefore, I am disposing of these bail applications by a common order. BA No.3680/2025 is filed under Sec. 483 of the BNSS and BA No. 3713/2025 is filed under Sec. 482 of the BNSS. Admittedly, now the petitioner is in jail.

(3.) BA No. 3680/2025 is filed for bail under Sec. 483 BNSS in Crime No. 733/CB/CU-II/EKM/R/2025 of CB CU-II, Ernakulam unit. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offences punishable under Secs. 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS'). The brief fact of the case is that, with the intention to make wrongful gain and to cause a wrongful loss to the members of the SEED Society located in Pezhakkappilly at Muvattupuzha, the accused received an amount of Rs.7,59,81,000.00 through the name of the consultancy of the 1st accused namely 'Professional Service Innovations' through his account in HDFC Bank at Iyyattilmukku, Thiruvananthapuram between July 2023 to December 2024. It is stated that the accused deceived the society members by offering that they would arrange motorcycles, sewing machines, home appliances and laptops at half price by using the Corporate Social Responsibility Fund (for short 'CSR Fund') and funds from various NGOs. It is alleged that even after receiving the money, the accused neither gave the proposed articles nor refunded the amount to the beneficiaries. The petitioner, who is the 2nd accused is also actively involved in the above cheating, is the prosecution case.