Kerala High Court
Ahammed Kabeer vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2019
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 15TH MAGHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 145 of 2019
CRIME NO. 514/2018 OF Bekal Police Station , Kasargod
PETITIONER/S:
AHAMMED KABEER,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. ABDULLAH PALLIPUZHA HOUSE PALLILKKARA VILLAGE
BEKAL, KASARGOD
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAHUL SASI
SMT.NEETHU PREM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM. 682031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
BEKAL POLICE STATION KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671318
3 AFSAL PALLIPUZHA
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED
PALLIPUZHA HOUSE,
PALLIKKARA VILLAGE,
P.O BAKEL FORT, BAKEL,
KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671121. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED
AS PER ORDER DATED 31/01/2019 IN CRL.MA.01/2019)
BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.S SREEKUMAR (SR) FOR PETITIONER ,SRI.P.
VIJAYABHANU(SR) FOR ADDL.R3,PP SRI.B.JAYASURYA (SR)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2019,
THE COURT ON 4/2/2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA No.145/2019 2
O R D E R
The petitioner stands arrayed as accused in Crime No. 514/2018 of Bekal police station for offences punishable under section 67A of the Information Technology Act and section 506 (1) IPC.
2. Petitioner and the defacto complainant are the members of a local "whatsapp" group. It is alleged that on 4/1/2018 a video clipping was uploaded by the accused, showing the defacto complainant exhibiting his private part. Alleging that it was a morphed video and that it was disseminated with the specific intention of tarnishing the image of the defacto complainant, a complaint was laid. There was a further allegation that, there was a voice message along with the video clipping in the voice of the petitioner warning that such further video clippings would be circulated. A complaint was laid by the defacto complainant to the DGP. It was forwarded to the Hitech crime enquiry cell. After conducting the preliminary enquiry, the report was forwarded to the District Police Chief requesting to register the crime. Accordingly, crime was registered. Apprehending arrest, the accused has approached this Court.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the defacto complainant who got impleaded.
4. The available materials indicate that there were long standing disputes and enimity between the two groups of local people, with members of the defacto complainant on one side and the accused and others on the other side. In the course of investigation, mobile phone of the BA No.145/2019 3 complainant was seized and that of the accused was also produced. According to the defacto complainant, the video clipping shows the morphed video and it was morphed by the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner taken up a contention that it was circulated among the whatsup group and he has not committed any offence as alleged.
5. Investigation has revealed that the objectionable video clipping was sent from mobile number 7909143786 of the accused. Prima facie it indicates that it has been disseminated from the mobile phone of the accused. Whether it was morphed, if so, the manner in which it was done, whether the petitioner got the assistance of others are matters that require investigation. The source from which the objectionable video clipping originated is also be ascertained.
Having considered the seriousness of the allegation and the nature of investigation that is to be done, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner . Accordingly, bail application fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
dpk JUDGE