Sujith vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jan 30, 2020

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1728277

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/1728277
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar
Decided On: Jan 30, 2020
Case Number: Bail Appl./105/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sujith

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice p.b.suresh kumar thursday, the 30th day of january 2020 / 10th magha, 1941 crime no.909/2019 of ochira police station, kollam petitioner/accused: sujith aged 25 years s/o. subramaniyam, puthen mannel veedu, azheekkal thura, alappadu, ochira, kollam-690526. by advs. sri.saijo hassan sri.benoj c augustine sri.rafeek.v.k. sri.u.m.hassan smt.surya p shaji sri.manas p hameed sri.gautham mohan h. smt.aathira sunny respondent: state of kerala represented by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam, cochin-31. by sri. amjad ali, sr. public prosecutor this bail application having come up for admission on 30.01.2020, the court on the same day passed the following: bail application no.105 of 2020 ----------------------------------------------orderthis is an application for anticipatory bail filed under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure.2. the petitioner is the sole accused in crime no.909of 2019 of ochira police station registered for offences punishable under sections 354a and 292(2)(a) of the indian penal code and section 67a of the information technology act, 2000. the accusation in the case in essence is that on account of previous enmity, the accused posted the particulars of the de facto complainant as that of a woman of easy virtue in a porn whatsapp group.3. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned public prosecutor.4. the learned public prosecutor has made available the case diary containing the first information statement and i have perused the same.having perused the case diary and other relevant documents, and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, i am of the view that this is not a case where the power of this court under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure is to be exercised. the anticipatory bail application, in the circumstances, is dismissed. sd/- p.b.suresh kumar, judge. dk

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 10TH MAGHA, 1941 CRIME NO.909/2019 OF OCHIRA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SUJITH AGED 25 YEARS S/O. SUBRAMANIYAM, PUTHEN MANNEL VEEDU, AZHEEKKAL THURA, ALAPPADU, OCHIRA, KOLLAM-690526. BY ADVS. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTINE SRI.RAFEEK.V.K. SRI.U.M.HASSAN SMT.SURYA P SHAJI SRI.MANAS P HAMEED SRI.GAUTHAM MOHAN H. SMT.AATHIRA SUNNY RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31. BY SRI. AMJAD ALI, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Bail Application No.105 of 2020 ----------------------------------------------

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.909

of 2019 of Ochira Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 354A and 292(2)(a) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The accusation in the case in essence is that on account of previous enmity, the accused posted the particulars of the de facto complainant as that of a woman of easy virtue in a porn whatsapp group.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has made available the case diary containing the First Information Statement and I have perused the same.

Having perused the case diary and other relevant documents, and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this is not a case where the power of this court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised. The anticipatory bail application, in the circumstances, is dismissed. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. DK

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2020 Same Parties Sujith vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar