Karnataka High Court
Sri Jaya Kumar vs State By Bengaluru Cen Crime P S on 1 September, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7356 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SRI. JAYA KUMAR
S/O. RAMAKRISHNA ARJUNA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
303, GRAND ICON LAYOUT
KACHANAYAKANAHALLI
NEAR MILK DAIRY
JIGANI, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560 105 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.N. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. I.S. DILIP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BY BENGALURU CEN CRIME PS
REPRSENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.19/2022 OF BENGALURU CEN CR.P.S.,
BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 67(B) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.19/2022 of Bengaluru CEN, Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the suo moto complaint registered by police, it is alleged that based on the information received from the CCPWD, NCCRP and NCMEC and on verification of the tape/CD received from CID through tappal it was confirmed that the porn video graph of the child was web hosted and viewed by the cell phone subscribers through service providers. It was alleged that on 22.01.2022 3 from 12.30 a.m. to 12.50 a.m. during the night hours, the petitioner is said to have viewed the porn video graph of the children. After obtaining information from the TP Line number, a complaint came to be lodged by the police. After registering the case, the police are making hectic effort to arrest the petitioner, hence he is before the court. His bail petition was rejected by the Sessions Judge, hence the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended the petitioner is innocent and have been falsely implicated. He is ready to abide by any conditions. Hence prayed for granting bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP objected the bail petition and prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
6. Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the records, which reveals of course petitioner said to have lost the mobile phone and he has obtained new 4 Sim Card and he was not aware about who was the person who had seen the porn video graph through his phone. However, there is no material placed on record to show, on which day he lost his mobile and which date he purchased new Sim Card which has to be investigated by the police during the investigation. The petitioner said to be aged about 61 years, he is suffering from so many age old ailments and he is under treatment. Though the offence is non bailable, the same is not punishable either with death or imprisonment of life. The offence is triable by the Magistrate. Therefore, without expressing any opinion in the said case, by imposing certain conditions, if bail is granted, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the following;
ORDER The respondent - Police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.19/2022 of Bengaluru CEN, Police Station, 5 Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety, for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;
(ii) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;
(iii) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;
(iv) Petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;
(v) Petitioner shall be deemed custody for
the purpose of any recovery under
6
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and
(vi) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation and If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV