Allowed

Solvin K.Wilson v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC31 Mar 2016Bail Appl./2375/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a pre-arrest bail application filed by four accused persons charged with theft. The court held that the case was essentially a family dispute and custodial interrogation was not warranted. The petition was allowed subject to standard bail conditions including a security deposit and restrictions on tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; accused released on bail subject to bond of 25,000/- each, no inducement to witnesses, and availability for interrogation.

Solvin K.Wilson Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/11TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2375 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 294/2016 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION , TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶8

SOLVIN K.WILSON S/O.LATE WILSON KODIYAN, THORAVU VILLAGE, PUDUKKAD DESOM, P.O.PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR DISRICT 680 301.

¶9

SHANIKI SOVIN

¶10

W/O.SOVIN.K.WILSON, THORAVU VILLAGE, PUDUKKAD DESOM, P.O.PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR DISRICT 680 301.

¶11

ANURAJ C.R,

¶12

S/O.RAJAN, CHAMAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANAMBATHORE P.O., CHANGALOOR, THRISSUR.

¶13

JIMMY K.A.

¶14

S/O.ANTONY, KODIYAN HOUSE, THORAVU VILLAGE, PUDUKKAD DESOM, P.O.PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR.

¶15

BY SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶17

THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Bail Appl..No. 2375 of 2016

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

ANNEXURES

¶23

I- A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR AND THE STATEMENT ATTACHED TO THE SAME IN CRIME NO.294 OF 2016 DATED 17.2.2016 OF THE PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION

¶24

IIA TRUE COPY OF M.C.NO.107 OF 2015 INITIATED BY THE MOTHER BEFORE THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE , IRINJALAKUDA DATED 4.9.2015

¶25

IIIA TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 IN ANNEXURE -II DATED 16.1.2016

¶26

IVA TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT IN ANNEXURE-II PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.2.2016

¶27

V- A TRUE COPY OF THE BILL FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE TELEVISION DATED 13.6.2012

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

P.S.To Judge

¶30

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶31

- - - - B.A.2375 of 2016

¶32

- - - - Dated 31^st March, 2016

¶33

¶34

ORDER

¶35

1.This application is filed under Section 438 of the

¶36

Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre arrest bail.

¶37

2.The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 4 in crime No.294 of 2006 of the Pudukkad police station, seen registered alleging offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶38

3.The gist of the prosecution allegation is that petitioners 1 and 2 , who are respectively son

¶39

and daughter-in-law of the de facto complainant, had pilfered household articles such as a Television and an Air-conditioner

¶40

B.A.2375/16

¶41

¶42

belonging to the de facto complainant. The petitioners 2 and 3 is alleged to have actively aided the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners in doing so. The 3^rd petitioner is a friend of the 1^st petitioner and the 4^th petitioner is the brother of late husband of the de facto complainant.

¶43

It is the admitted case of the de facto complainant that the petitioners 1 and 2 were staying with the defacto complainant in the same residential house .

¶44

5.As is evident from Annexure-II, a petition was earlier lodged by the de facto complainant against the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Irinjalakkuda invoking the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

¶45

B.A.2375/16

¶46

¶47

6.I have heard the learned learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

¶48

7.It appears that it is essentially a dispute between the son and his mother and in the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that this is not a case in which custodial interrogation of the petitioners is warranted.

¶49

8.In the result, the petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶50

i). The petitioners shall be released on bail after interrogation on their executing a bond for 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if they are arrested by the Police in connection with this

B.A.2375/16

case.

ii). The petitioners 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/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶55

iii). The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶56

iv). The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶57

v). The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail. vi). The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the jurisdictional magistrate.

¶58

vii). In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional magistrate shall be

¶59

B.A.2375/16

¶60

¶61

empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge

¶64

Mrcs/31.3.2016

¶65

//True Copy//

¶66

P.S.To Judge

Solvin K.Wilson v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Solvin K.Wilson v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu George,S/O.Late George Mathew Vs Muthoor Bankers(Thiruvalla)

Dinesh Vs State of Kerala

Shoukathali Vs Tahsildar,Manjeri

Salju Vs State of Kerala

Seema Mohan Vs the State of Kerala

Prasannakumar P. Vs the State of Kerala