Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1941 CRIME NO.1226/2019 OF Pala Police Station , Kottayam PETITIONER/S: BIJU AGED 41 YEARS KATTACKAL,ANTHINADU,PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAI POLICE STATION,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3 ADDL.R3 THOMAS @ BHADRAN MATTEL AGED 67 YEARS, S/O RAJANKUTTY, MATTEL HOUSE, KADAPATTOOR PO, MEENACHIL TALUK, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, PALA-686574. IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 10.6.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN BA-3009/2019.
OTHER PRESENT: SRI RAMESH CHAND PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Crime No.1226 of 2019 was registered at the Palai Police Station under Section 420 and 500 of the IPC and under Sections 63, 51(a)(i), 51(a)(ii) of Copyright Act, 1957 at the instance of Sri. Bhadran.
3. According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant is
the script writer of an iconic malayalam movie by name 'Sphadikam'. It is alleged that the applicant was planning to bring out a sequel to the movie by adopting the character, dialogues etc. by infringing the copyright of the owner. It is also alleged that the applicant uploaded a teaser video in the social media on 30.03.2019. It is also alleged that the applicant collected money from various quarters by inducing several persons to believe that he has been granted rights by the informant to bring out a sequel.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and ..3.. the learned Public Prosecutor. This Court had ordered the applicant to implead the de facto complainant as additional respondent. Though notice was issued to him, there is no appearance.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the applicant is innocent. According to the learned counsel, the applicant has been working in the Film industry from the year 2000 onwards and he is not
a person with any antecedents. It is urged that if the applicant is arrested and detained on these allegations, he would be subjected to humiliation and injury.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have
perused the records. It appears from the records that a civil suit instituted by the applicant is pending before the Munsiff Court, Pala. The prosecution has no case that it would be difficult to secure the presence of the applicant. In the facts and circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary for the purpose of investigation.
7. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is ..4..
proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier. ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Sd/- RAJAVIJAYARAGHAVAN. V JUDGE kkj/30.10.19