Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE2D DAY OF JANUARY201412TH POUSHA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 7529 of 2013 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1091/2012 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION ,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ------------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------------- VIJESH, AGED32YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, PUTHIYAVEETIL, THEKKUM BHAGOM KARAYIL, PUTHIYAVEETIL, THEKKUM BHAGOM KARAYIL, KARIKKODE VILLEGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASURYA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0201-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7529 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 02nd day of January, 2014 ORDER
The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No. 1091 of 2012 of Muvattupuzha Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 66(A) and 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. The crime was registered on a complaint dated 21.11.2012 lodged by one Jovial Biju. The grievance of the defacto complainant is that some person had taken her photographs on the date of the inauguration of a Jewellery and her picture was uploaded in the 'You Tube' with titles.
3. The petitioner would say that even assuming all the allegations to be true, he had no role to play in the incident and he had nothing to do with the incident. He has not done any act which would constitute an offence and he has been unnecessarily implicated. B.A. No. 7529/2013 -2- 4. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the petitioner was involved in the incident which gave rise to the crime.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, there seems to be some substance in the complaint raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Except for the general vague allegations, there is no specific role attributed to the petitioner with regard to the crime which is registered against him and the other accused persons. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The petition is allowed as follows:
1. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 09.01.2014, B.A. No. 7529/2013 -3- who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the JFCM court concerned, which court, on an application for bail being moved by the petitioner shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of `15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court. 2) The court shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail. 3) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9.00 am and 10.00 am until further orders. 4) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses. 5) If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled and the court B.A. No. 7529/2013 -4- concerned may take such steps as are available to it in accordance with law. P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds