Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Ram Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 7 December, 2018

Author: K.Abraham Mathew

Bench: K.Abraham Mathew

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

  FRIDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

                      Bail Appl..No. 7836 of 2018

CRIME NO. 14/2016 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONER:

               RAM KUMAR,AGED 29 YEARS
               S/O RAMA MOORTHY,
               RESIDING AT B/133/ JAI NAGAR,
               N. KOSAVAMPATTI, NAMAKKAL,
               TAMIL NADU

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
               SMT.K.VIDYA
               SRI.VINODE V. LUKA

RESPONDENTS:
       1     STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
             CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
             THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031

      2        DR. A.R. BABU
               MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEERA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT.
               LTD., HEERA PARK, M.P. APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

               SR.PP. SRI. C.S. HRITHWIK


THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl..No. 7836 of 2018                      2


                                         ORDER

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.14 of 2016 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 43 r/w Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. Earlier he had filed two applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C which were dismissed by Annexure-A2 and A3 orders by this court. This is the third application for the very same purpose. The change of circumstances pleaded is that he has been issued a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. A notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C may be issued when the police officer does not think that the arrest of the particular person is not necessary under Section 41 Cr.P.C. The very fact that the petitioner has been issued a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C shows that the investigating officer has no intention to arrest him as of now. At the same time, Bail Appl..No. 7836 of 2018 3 it may be noted that if the investigating officer is satisfied that his arrest is necessary after his interrogation there is no prohibition for it. So the issuance of notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C alone will not entitle him to anticipatory bail since his earlier two applications were dismissed. This application is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

In the result, this Bail Application is dismissed.

Sd/-


                                                      K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
                                                            JUDGE

    pm




    // TRUE COPY //     PA TO JUDGE