Kerala High Court
Vincy Wilson vs State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:60630
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 9180 OF 2025
CRIME NO.814/2025 OF TOWN WEST POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC NO.900 OF 2025
OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, THRISSUR.
PETITIONER:
VINCY WILSON.,
AGED 28 YEARS,
D/O.WILSON, CHUNGATH HOUSE, NEDUPUZHA,
KOORKENCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 007.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.K.SANDEEP
SMT.SWETHA R.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
SMT. SREEJA V., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl. No.9180 of 2025
2025:KER:60630
-2-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.9180 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.814 of 2025 of
Thrissur West Police Station, registered for the offences punishable
under sections 406, 409, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short 'IPC').
3. According to the prosecution, the accused, who was the
Relationship Officer of a financial establishment, had, during the
period from 23.11.2023 to 11.01.2014, forged the documents
submitted by the customers and misappropriated an amount of
Rs.18,00,000/- by diverting the amounts to her personal account and
thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Sri. T K Sandeep., the learned counsel for the petitioner,
contended that the prosecution allegations are false and that the
petitioner had not misappropriated any amount. It was also
submitted that her bank accounts would clearly reveal that no amount
had been received by her through misappropriation or by diversion of
2025:KER:60630
amounts due to the customers of the company. It was also submitted
that the petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that may be
imposed.
5. Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed
the application and submitted that her custodial interrogation is
necessary.
6. Petitioner was an employee of the establishment of the de
facto complainant. She is alleged to have forged documents and
diverted the funds due to be paid to the customers. Though the
allegations are serious, since the misappropriation, if any, have not
been the subject matter of complaint by any of the customers who
would have suffered loss if the allegations were true and also taking
note of the possibility of records being available to indicate the nature
of misappropriation and criminal breach of trust, I am of the view that
petitioner can be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail on
conditions.
7. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 (5)
SCC 1, it was held that while considering whether to grant
anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by
considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role
attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of
anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to
2025:KER:60630
be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each
case, and subject to the discretion of the court.
8. In the instant case, the State has not been able to
convince this Court that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
necessary. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the
case, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious
in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and
the petitioner is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.
Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer
on 21.08.2025 and shall subject herself to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes
to arrest the petitioner, then, she shall be released on bail
on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like
sum before the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer
as and when required and shall also co-operate with the
investigation.
(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence
the witnesses; nor shall she tamper with the evidence.
(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while she
is on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any
modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the
2025:KER:60630
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications,
if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law,
notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
ADS
2025:KER:60630
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9180/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure AI TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.
814/2025 REGISTERED BY THRISSUR WEST
POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DATED
26.04.2025.
Annexure 2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.900/2025
BEFORE THE HON'BLE SESSIONS JUDGE,
THRISSUR DATED 17.07.2025.
