Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Adv.Sri.Latheesh Sebastian on 11 January, 2018
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 21ST POUSHA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 8531 of 2017
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 1892/2017 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM
-----------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
-------------------
CHITRARAJAN R.P.,
S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, AGED 36 YEARS,
CHITHRALAYAM, MUDAKKAL P.O.,
AVANAVANCHERRY, ATTINGAL.
BY ADV.SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION-695041.
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VENJARAMOODU.695041.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI AJITH MURALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A.No.8531 of 2017
--------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2018
ORDER
1.This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.1892 of 2017 of Venjaramoodu Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Section 354(c) and 500 of the IPC, and Sections 67(A) and 66(E) of the IT Act.
3. The de facto complainant in the instant case is the husband of the victim girl. The petitioner was having acquaintance with the victim prior to her marriage. He is alleged to have taken nude photos and videos of the wife of the informant and by misusing the same, he demanded sexual favours from the lady. When she refused to accede to the demands of the petitioner, he is alleged to have forwarded the photographs and videos to the mobile phone of the informant. Thereafter, he is alleged to have continued with his threats. Left with no alternative, a complaint was filed based on which the Crime was registered.
B.A.No. 8531 of 2017 2
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even if the allegations are accepted as such, the offence alleged will not be made out. According to the learned counsel, he had not published or transmitted any content involving any sexually explicit act. It is argued that rest of the offences are bailable in nature and in that view of the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is unwarranted.
5.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. Referring to the case diary, it is submitted that the materials collected till date points to the complicity of the petitioner. It is submitted that arming the petitioner with an order of pre- arrest bail would adversely affect the case of the prosecution which rests on electronic evidence.
6.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. Prima facie, it appears that there are clinching materials in the case diary which links the petitioner with the Crime. The victim is a 19 year old girl and the petitioner, by his acts, has managed to create a discord B.A.No. 8531 of 2017 3 in her matrimonial relationship. The contention of the learned counsel that he is innocent cannot be countenanced. I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction and grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
7.The learned counsel prays that a direction be issued to enable the petitioner to surrender before the jurisdictional court. I do not see any need for issuance of any such directions. The petitioner shall surrender as expeditiously as possible and if an application for bail is filed, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on its merits.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE //True Copy\\ P.A to Judge IAP