Summary: In a recent court case in Kerala, Maya and her husband Balakrishnan were accused of having more money and assets than they should, based on their income. They asked the court to give back their seized assets, but the court, led by Justice A. Badharudeen, turned down their requests.
On November 19, 2025, the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, with Justice A. Badharudeen in charge, looked into two legal requests from Maya and her husband, Balakrishnan. They were challenging a decision made on September 15, 2025, by a special judge in Kozhikode. The case started from a police report filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) in Kozhikode.
Maya, who used to work in the Revenue Department, was accused of having more money and assets than her salary could explain. The Vigilance took several bank savings certificates and gold jewelry, saying they were bought with illegal money. Maya and Balakrishnan wanted the court to return these items without requiring a bank guarantee.
"The main issue is the release of 17 bank savings certificates taken by the Vigilance," the court noted.
Justice A. Badharudeen decided against Maya and Balakrishnan, saying they still needed to provide a bank guarantee. The court stressed the importance of keeping assets safe if they might be connected to illegal actions during investigations.
"Petitioners must provide a bond for ₹50,00,000 with two reliable people to back it up and show a bank guarantee," the court ordered.
Maya and Balakrishnan's lawyer argued that the bank guarantee requirement was too difficult. They mentioned past cases like Bijumon v. State of Kerala, suggesting different ways to secure the assets. However, the court decided these past cases didn't apply to their situation.
After looking at everything, the court decided that Maya and Balakrishnan's requests could not be accepted. Justice Badharudeen explained that a bank guarantee was necessary to make sure the assets could be returned if they were found to be illegally obtained.
"The request to avoid providing a Bank Guarantee by offering property as security is not acceptable," the judgment stated.
