Person Accused of Criminal Offences Should Know That They Are Going to Jail and Not for Medical Tourism: Kerala High Court Dismisses Bail Plea Under BNSS Sickness Provison
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan dismissed a set of bail applications filed under Sections 482 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by an undertrial prisoner accused in multiple financial fraud cases. The Court held that “the person accused of criminal offences should know that they are going to jail and not for medical tourism”, rejecting the plea for bail based on the accused’s medical condition. The Court stated that jail doctors must be the primary authority to recommend external medical treatment and that illness alone does not entitle a person to bail under the first proviso to Section 480(1) of the BNSS.
The bail applications concerned were filed by a 70-year-old accused presently in judicial custody, facing serious allegations in two separate cases. In the first case, registered as Crime No. 733/2025 of CB CID Ernakulam, it was alleged that the accused, along with others, fraudulently collected ₹7,59,81,000 from members of the SEED Society, Pezhakkappilly, by offering household items, sewing machines, motorcycles, and laptops at half price using purported Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and NGO funds. The money was collected through the accused's consultancy, Professional Service Innovations, but no products or refunds were delivered.
In the second case, Crime No. 748/2025 of CBCID, Kannur, the accused allegedly defrauded the Kannur SEED Society and 494 of its members, collecting ₹2,96,40,000 in a similar scheme involving the sale of scooters at half the market price. Again, the promised goods were not delivered nor was the money refunded. The petitioner was apprehensive of arrest in this case and sought anticipatory bail.
The petitioner argued that he was the founder of Sri Sathya Sai Gramam Global Trust and was being implicated due to funds transferred to the Trust’s account. It was claimed that he was not involved in the financial dealings of the first accused and merely acted in a supervisory role as the Managing Trustee of the National NGO Confederation, in which the first accused was also a member.
The petitioner submitted that due to his age and serious cardiac issues, including a 90% artery blockage for which angiography was conducted, he was entitled to bail under the sickness proviso to Section 480(1) of the BNSS.
Senior Public Prosecutors Hrithwik C.S. and Noushad K.A., representing the State, submitted detailed reports from the Investigating Officer and opposed the bail plea. It was argued that the petitioner had direct and active involvement in the scheme. The Investigating Officer cited evidence that the petitioner participated in events promoting the fraudulent scheme, was party to trust deeds identifying the first accused as responsible for executing the projects, and received funds in the Trust’s bank account linked to the fraudulent activities.
The prosecution further reported that the petitioner was implicated in 24 crime branch cases, with formal arrests already recorded in 15. The remaining cases were pending arrest and further custodial interrogation was deemed necessary. It was argued that releasing the petitioner at this stage would hinder the investigation and defeat the course of justice.
The Court examined the factual and legal grounds, stating: “the first and foremost contention is that the petitioner has no direct involvement in the case” and determined that a prima facie case was made against the petitioner.
It recorded: “The definite case of the prosecution is that, till date, the 1st accused has not obtained any CSR fund and funds from NGOs for the above project implementations.” The Court noted that the petitioner’s participation in promotional functions could not be ignored: “It is surprising to see that he went with the 1st accused in several functions to get beneficiaries for the half-price scheme.”
The Court referred to Clause 6 of the trust deed stating: “Shri Ananthu Krishnan, the sole proprietor of Professional Services Innovations, is responsible for handling all financial transactions related to the 50% subsidized supply of laptops, two-wheelers, and sewing machines to the members of the National NGO Confederation.” Justice Kunhikrishnan observed: “The petitioner cannot wash his hand relying on clause (6) of the trust deed.”
On the scale of the fraud, the Court noted: “About 56082 beneficiaries remitted an amount of ₹23,24,27,200 for sewing machines, 36981 beneficiaries paid ₹92,22,75,000 for laptops, 10300 beneficiaries paid ₹20,60,00,000 for home appliances, and 48523 beneficiaries paid ₹2,81,43,00,000 for scooters.” It held that “This is a big financial scam in Kerala.”
Addressing the petitioner’s claim for bail on medical grounds under the first proviso to Section 480(1) of BNSS, the Court stated: “Simply because a person is sick, no court needs to release the petitioner invoking the first proviso.” The Court clarified that the provision is applicable “only in cases in which the Medical Officer attached to the prison concerned submits a medical report...that the particular prisoner cannot be given medical treatment within their facility.”
It further recorded: “An under-trial prisoner/convict cannot choose a hospital and pick a luxury room... They should taste the food inside the jail and not the homemade food that comes in a parcel box from their homes.”
The Court cited a detailed statement filed by the Director General of Prisons outlining the medical infrastructure available in Kerala’s jails, which includes visits by government doctors, access to district hospitals, medical colleges, specialist centers like RCC and SCTIMST, and 24x7 emergency services. The Court concluded: “Our jails are well equipped to treat the prisoners and undertrial prisoners.”
Justice Kunhikrishnan quoted Rule 488 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014, which mandates medical certification and jail superintendent recommendation before an ill prisoner may be released. The Court also invoked Circular No. 02/2019 for judicial officers, instructing strict adherence to medical assessment protocols when remanding accused persons.
Reiterating the constitutional balance between Article 21 rights and custodial restrictions, the Court stated: “Even though the right to life is a fundamental right, there are reasonable restrictions permitted in the case of under-trial prisoners and convicts.”
The Court concluded: “In light of the above discussion, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage.” It further directed: “The Investigating Officers in the cases will try to record the arrest of the petitioner in all cases in which he is implicated as an accused, as expeditiously as possible.” The Court permitted the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after custodial interrogation and once the arrests in all related cases were complete.
Justice Kunhikrishnan also issued guidance for future judicial consideration under Section 480(1) of BNSS, stating: “If any bail application based on the first proviso to Section 480(1) of BNSS is filed, the court should be very careful and unless a report from the jail doctors is received, saying that there is no facility for treatment in jail for a particular illness, the court need not entertain the same.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V., Advocates
For the Respondents: Hrithwik C.S., Senior Public Prosecutor; Noushad K.A., Senior Public Prosecutor
Case Title: K.N. Anand Kumar v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:29600
Case Number: B.A. Nos. 3680 & 3713 of 2025
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan
[Read/Download order]
