Mayickal Gangadharan Girish Kumar @ M G ... vs State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mayickal Gangadharan Girish Kumar @ M G ... vs State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2021

Bench: K.Natarajan

                          1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4359/2021

BETWEEN

MAYICKAL GANGADHARAN GIRISH KUMAR
@ M G GIRISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O NEELAKANTAN GANGADHARAN NAIR
@ N G NAIR
R/AT NO.149, GETHA NIVAS
NEAR LIFELINE TENDER CHICKEN
JAMES STREET
KAMMANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 084.                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR T P, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
EAST CEN CRIME POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560 009

REP BY THE LEARNED SENIOR PUBIIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU.                              ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, 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.47/2021 OF EAST CEN CRIME POLICE
                              2


STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES             PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 67, 67(B) OF I.T. ACT.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.47/2021 of East Cen Crime Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 67, 67 (B) of the Information Technology Act.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the police officer, East CEN Crime Police Station registered a suomotu case against the petitioner for the above said offences contending that he received information from the cyber crime, CID branch out of Cyber Crime Prevention against women and Children (CPWC), National Cyber Crime Portal (NCCRP)/ National Centre for Missing and 3 Exploited Children (NCMEC) received the message and received secret information from the service provider that the petitioner is said to have viewed porn video graph of the child through his mobile number 9972406150 and based on these information the police registering the case. Therefore, the Police made effort to arrest this petitioner. He moved the bail petition before learned Sessions Judge which came to be rejected. Hence he is before this Court.

4. Having heard the argument, perused the record, admittedly the alleged incident is said to have committed on 6.5.2019 and the complaint came to be lodged against petitioner 21.1.2021. Based upon the report sent by the service provider in respect of the video clipping of porn video of the child which amounts to child abuse

5. Though the alleged offence is non bailable, the same is not punishable either with death or imprisonment of life. Petitioner is said to be permanent resident of Bangalore. Therefore, without expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the case, by imposing certain 4 conditions, if bail is granted, no prejudice would cause to the prosecution case. Hence, the following order:

ORDER The respondent - Police are directed to release the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 67, 67(B) of the Information Technology Act subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

(ii) Petitioner shall surrender within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order;

(iii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

(iv) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

(v) Petitioner shall be deemed custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;

(vi) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation ; and

(vii) Petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Sd/-

JUDGE AKV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court