IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(Crl.).No. 277 of 2011(S) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BIJU THOMAS, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, CHEMMARIKKAL HOUSE, NEAR JANASEVA SISU BHAVAN, U.C.COLLEGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN, SRI.NIREESH MATHEW. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY (HOME AFFAIRS), GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW & ORDER), POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINGALAKKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 680 001. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINGALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 680 001. 5. PASTOR JOSE PONNARA, EMPEROR EMMANUEL CHURCH, ZION MURIYAD CHARITABLE TRUST, PULLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 680 020. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.K. BABU, R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(CRL.). NO.277/2011-S: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: NIL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(Crl.) NO: 277 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th July, 2011. JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner alleges that the fifth respondent pastor has unduly influenced the mind of the petitioner's wife Mary Nirmal and has thus persuaded her and kept her under illegal detention under a covered religious style. The petitioner and Mary Nirmal have two children. The alleged detenu is before us. She professes a particular faith and belief. That is part of the freedom of conscience that the Constitution of India guarantees to her. If that be so, the petitioner can only wait to persuade her to tow his line of religious conscience or live with her amicably, preserving to each of them their independent views in religious matters. At any rate, we do not find any ground of illegal detention being made out. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj 2 3