Allowed

Wilfred Aramban v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2022Bail Appl./265/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court allowed anticipatory bail for the first two accused petitioners in a matrimonial offence case involving cruelty and misappropriation, directing them to execute bonds and abide by specific conditions. Bail was dismissed for the third petitioner as he was not an accused.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners 1 and 2 granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including execution of bonds, reporting to IO, and not interfering with investigation.

Wilfred Aramban Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 265 OF 2022

¶6

Crime No.1951/2022 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 WILFRED ARAMBAN AGED 30 YEARS, S/O GEORGE ARAMBAN AGED 30 YEARS, POYYAYIL HOUSE, P.O. PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR - 670011 KANNUR, PIN - 670011 2 WILMA ARAMBAN AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. WILFRED ARAMBAN, AGED 57 YEARS, POYYAYIL HOUSE, P.O. PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR – 670011, KANNUR, PIN - 670011 3 SHALIN ARAMBAN AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. WILFRED ARAMBAN, AGED 23YEARS, POYYAYIL HOUSE, P.O. PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR -670011, KANNUR, PIN - 670011 BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) PRAJIT RATNAKARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SRI. T.R. RENJITH (SR.PP)

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A. No.265/2022

-2-

O R D E R

The petitioners 1 and 2 are the accused in Crime No.1951/2021 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District alleging commission of offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506 (i) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 3^rd petitioner is not an accused in the case.

¶18

The allegation against the petitioner 1 & 2 is that after the marriage of the 1^st petitioner with the de facto complainant, she was subject to all sorts of cruelty and that her gold and other valuables were misappropriated by the petitioners. It is also alleged that the de facto complainant was threatened to be killed and that she was forced to sexually mingle with male friends of the 1^st petitioner.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the owing to irretrievable break up of the marriage, the 1^st petitioner and the de facto complainant are living separately. It is submitted that the allegations are raised only to settle normal matrimonial disputes between the 1^st petitioner and the de facto complainant. It is submitted that at any rate, considering the nature of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in the matter. It is submitted that the allegation that the de facto complainant was forced to sexually mingle with the male friends of the 1^st petitioner and that she was threatened are absolutely untrue.

¶20

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and being convinced that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners 1 & 2 may not be

¶22

B.A. No.265/2022

¶23

-3-

¶24

necessary for the purpose of any investigation, I am of the view that the petitioners 1 & 2 can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

¶25

In the result, this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners 1 & 2 shall be released on bail, in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.1951/2021 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) Petitioners 1 & 2 shall execute bonds for sums of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶27

(ii) Petitioners 1 & 2 shall report before the Investigating officer in Crime No.1951/2021 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station as and when called upon to do so;

¶28

(iii) Petitioners 1 & 2 shall not interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de facto complainant or any witness in Crime No.1951/2021 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station;

¶29

(iv) Petitioners 1 & 2 shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶30

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.1951/2021 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶31

Since the 3^rd petitioner is not an accused in the case the bail application so far as it relates to the 3^rd petitioner will stand dismissed.

¶32

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

AMG

B.A. No.265/2022

-4-

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 265/2022

¶37

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶38

Annexure1 Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE

Wilfred Aramban v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wilfred Aramban v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulfikar B. Vs State of Kerala

Gulam Razool.M. Vs State of Kerala

Mujeeb Rahman Vs the State of Kerala

Midhesh P.M., Vs State of Kerala

Sankaranarayanan Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudeen Jamal Vs State of Kerala