Kerala High Court
Anandhu Anil vs State Of Kerala on 12 September, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
BAIL APPL. NO. 10571 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:68253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 21ST BHADRA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 10571 OF 2025
CRIME NO.26/2025 OF KOLLAM RURAL CYBER POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S):
ANANDHU ANIL
AGED 25 YEARS
KOCHU VEETIL KIZHAKKETHIL KUREEPUZHA KAVANADU KOLLAM.,
PIN - 691003
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ANANDA SUBRAMANIAM
SHRI.MOHAMED SHALI NAMSHAD
RESPONDENT(S):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
2 SHO
CYBER PS KOLLAM,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, PIN - 682031.
BY SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.09.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 10571 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:68253
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.10571 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 12th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.26/2025 of Cyber Police Station, Kollam; registered for the offences punishable under Section 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The prosecution case is that, the accused, who is working in the Head Post Office at Kollam, had with the intent to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant without her knowledge and consent took videographs of her private parts, morphed those videos and photographs and uploaded the same on a restricted pornographic website, and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Sri.Ananda Subramaniam, the learned counsel for the petitioner BAIL APPL. NO. 10571 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:68253 submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are false and no such incident as alleged had occurred. It was further submitted that even if the entire prosecution allegations are admitted, it would only reveal an intrusion into the privacy of the defacto complainant, which is a bailable offence under law. The learned counsel also submitted that there are no materials to even assume that the videographs were ever uploaded on any restricted sites. Further, the petitioner is a hearing impaired person and has a disability of 80% and therefore he ought not to be subjected to custodial interrogation.
6. Sri.Prasanth M.P., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submitted that the defacto complainant had specifically alleged that she came across the mobile phone of the accused by accident, wherein she found her face had been morphed and pornographic videos created by the accused. It was further submitted that the accused had taken the videographs from different angles of her private parts, created fake videos, and uploaded the same on various pornographic sites. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that custodial interrogation would reveal the mode and manner in which such acts were done.
7. I have considered the rival contentions.
8. Petitioner claims to be a person with 80% disability. However, that is not a justification for commission of any criminal acts. The defacto complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioner had zoomed in on BAIL APPL. NO. 10571 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:68253 her private parts without her knowledge or permission and took videographs of the same. It is also alleged that the petitioner has created deepfake videos of the defacto complainant and even allegedly published it in various pornographic websites.
9. Considering the nature of allegations, it is evident that the petitioner is alleged to have committed a very serious crime. The type of offence alleged not only involves an intrusion into the privacy but also social stigma due to publication or uploading of such materials. In such circumstances, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner can be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail. Hence, this bail application is dismissed.
10. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer on 18.09.2025 and subjects himself to interrogation, and thereafter if the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court without undue delay. Further, if any application for bail is filed, the court shall consider the same, without undue delay, in accordance with law.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/16/09/2025