Harikrishnan , vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jun 11, 2024

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1325610

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1325610
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias
Decided On: Jun 11, 2024
Case Number: Bail Appl./4118/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Harikrishnan ,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....in crimeno.42/2023 of the cyber crime police station, thrissur, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under section 67 of the information technology act,2000 and section 120(o) of the kerala police act, 2011.3. heard; kum.gayathri muraleedharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and sri. c. s. hrithwik, the learned senior public prosecutor.4. on a perusal of the materials placed on record, i find that both the offences alleged against the -:3:- petitioner are bailable in nature. nonetheless, byannexure-a3 order, the learned sessions judge, without taking note of the fact that the offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable in nature, dismissed the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail on the finding that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary. the said finding is erroneous and incorrect. it is elementary that an application for anticipatory bail is mandatory only if the accused apprehends of arrest for committing non-bailable offence. as the offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable in nature, i am of the view that this bail application is not maintainable.in the result, the bail application is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional court and get himself enlarged on bail. the jurisdictional court shall, notwithstanding the observations made in annexure-a3 -:4:- order, consider the petitioner's application, if any filed, in accordance with law. sd/- c.s.dias,judge dst/11.06.24 //true copy// p.a. to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 4118 OF 2024 CRIME NO.42/2023 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, THRISSUR PETITIONER: HARIKRISHNAN, AGED 29 YEARS S/O MYLENCHERY RAMAKRISHNAN, PUTHISSERY HOUSE, KANATTUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680011 BY ADVS. GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN SANJU K. SIVAN ARATHY P. ANJANA S. RAJ

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2024

ORDER

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime

No.42/2023 of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act,2000 and Section 120(O) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.

3. Heard; Kum.Gayathri Muraleedharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. On a perusal of the materials placed on record, I find that both the offences alleged against the -:3:- petitioner are bailable in nature. Nonetheless, by

Annexure-A3 order, the learned Sessions Judge, without taking note of the fact that the offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable in nature, dismissed the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail on the finding that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary. The said finding is erroneous and incorrect. It is elementary that an application for anticipatory bail is mandatory only if the accused apprehends of arrest for committing non-bailable offence. As the offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable in nature, I am of the view that this bail application is not maintainable.

In the result, the bail application is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Court and get himself enlarged on bail. The jurisdictional Court shall, notwithstanding the observations made in Annexure-A3 -:4:- order, consider the petitioner's application, if any filed, in accordance with law. Sd/- C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/11.06.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2024 Same Parties Harikrishnan , vs State of Kerala, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias